Interesting article about where the ultimate responsibility of character development lies in contemporary education
:shrug:

http://www.wie.org/j35/professors.asp?ifr=hp-art
The initial results of the survey, as reported in these pages several years ago, revealed that undergraduates are eager to explore spiritual interests and to talk about the deeper meaning and purpose of life. More than sixty percent of first-year students entering over 230 U.S. institutions of higher learning said they hoped to have an opportunity to develop their personal values, self-understanding, and maturity while at college.

As heartening and promising a comment as this may be on the aspirations of America’s collegiate youth, administrators of the study at the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI), based at the University of California, Los Angeles, discovered that for the most part professors have something else in mind.
Professors without answers

Nearly eighty percent of the more than forty thousand faculty members surveyed from over 420 schools acknowledged that spirituality or religion was important in their lives. But far fewer of them were willing to discuss this aspect of their lives in class. While sixty percent of the professors acknowledged that moral development is a worthy goal for an undergraduate, a mere thirty percent of them responded affirmatively when asked whether they thought it was the school’s responsibility to address the moral and spiritual development of students. And of those thirty percent, the majority were, not surprisingly, faculty who teach at religious institutions.

I'm not shelling out 30 grand a year to hear some liberal preacher moralize about bullshit. I'm there to learn science.

It is common for faculty to teach at separate institutions. One religious, another secular. For some it pays the bills.

The students expressed an interest in developing their personal values. Admirable.

But the professors not interested in hurting somebody's feelings declined to share their personal opinions in order to keep their jobs. The other faculty, seeing an opportunity to indoctrinate their views engaged in another kind of education in this case, and the ones who are simply honest about what they feel is right, are the ones who would prefer to actually say what they mean in regards to morality.

But ultimately, if the student wants to explore the "deeper meaning" of life" and develope "meaningful relationships" to "understand themselves", they should do it on their own or seek out a source that they can consider. It is after all a highly personal undertaking and one which requires time and effort. Not anything like a college course. It requires much more effort. But treat it with a logical mind. If it doesn't "ring" right, chances are it isn't right. one can learn to recognize it after a while.

I agree with Roman. Go to college to learn about science. After all, it's what they really know. Can't combine the two worlds because they simply don't mix, at least in the way we think they should.

More than sixty percent of first-year students entering over 230 U.S. institutions of higher learning said they hoped to have an opportunity to develop their personal values, self-understanding, and maturity while at college.

I can remember when merely growing up in the real world and getting on with your life, job and studies was sufficient to develop "personal values, self-understanding, and maturity".

Oh mores, oh tempora!

I can remember when merely growing up in the real world and getting on with your life, job and studies was sufficient to develop "personal values, self-understanding, and maturity".

Oh mores, oh tempora!

in recent historical eras there wasn't such a high number of ridiculous court cases and misrepresentation of bastions of character, thus things were more integrated


ROMAN

I'm not shelling out 30 grand a year to hear some liberal preacher moralize about bullshit. I'm there to learn science.

just consider the problems of nuclear energy
do we have problems with it because we don't have enough people who know how to manufacture it properly or do we have problems with it because we don't have enough people who know how to use it properly?

It is common for faculty to teach at separate institutions. One religious, another secular. For some it pays the bills.

The students expressed an interest in developing their personal values. Admirable.

But the professors not interested in hurting somebody's feelings declined to share their personal opinions in order to keep their jobs. The other faculty, seeing an opportunity to indoctrinate their views engaged in another kind of education in this case, and the ones who are simply honest about what they feel is right, are the ones who would prefer to actually say what they mean in regards to morality.

But ultimately, if the student wants to explore the "deeper meaning" of life" and develope "meaningful relationships" to "understand themselves", they should do it on their own or seek out a source that they can consider. It is after all a highly personal undertaking and one which requires time and effort. Not anything like a college course. It requires much more effort. But treat it with a logical mind. If it doesn't "ring" right, chances are it isn't right. one can learn to recognize it after a while.

I agree with Roman. Go to college to learn about science. After all, it's what they really know. Can't combine the two worlds because they simply don't mix, at least in the way we think they should.

isn't it slightly scary, particularly in the light of what can be achieved with contemporary science in terms of world destruction/suffering, that there is
no impetus (even though the importance is perceived by both students and teachers alike) for value based education?

isn't it slightly scary, particularly in the light of what can be achieved with contemporary science in terms of world destruction/suffering, that there is
no impetus (even though the importance is perceived by both students and teachers alike) for value based education?

And and true, yet values can be treacherous when in the hands of the individual...because they can very well be manufactured items of ulterior motive designed to represent the "good" in a person, when the "good" is actually only beneficial to the creator or adopter of said values, which are applied to fulfill their own desires. Most abused values are related to ego based initiatives, but some are worse in their manifestation...such as values that lead to genocide, (Hitler, et al) control based fiasco's that cannot be "contained" and subsequently self-destruct like one-liner (or one-verser) religious groups following a man with a mantra, and other examples. Renegade value abusers cause others to shy away from pursuing perfectly noble ambitions, because character assassination and associative black eyes are epidemic.

Thus you have the deficit in an impetus for value based education. especially in times like these.

Values have their own virtue and by themselves are nothing more than harmless entities with a definition; but how those values are applied by the individual is the crux of the matter. Yet the individual is often too distracted by straw dummyism to be able to separate issues and find out where the flaw is.

This is conceptualized in the well-known analogy that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" and where the term "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes from.
Man has always had a devil of a time separating the good stuff from the bad so that it can be applied appropriately.

But far fewer of them were willing to discuss this aspect of their lives in class.
after i've heard some of the name calling here it's no damned wonder.

And and true, yet values can be treacherous when in the hands of the individual...because they can very well be manufactured items of ulterior motive designed to represent the "good" in a person, when the "good" is actually only beneficial to the creator or adopter of said values, which are applied to fulfill their own desires.
this is how precisely how people learn values in the absence of norms for regulating such learning

Most abused values are related to ego based initiatives, but some are worse in their manifestation...such as values that lead to genocide, (Hitler, et al) control based fiasco's that cannot be "contained" and subsequently self-destruct like one-liner (or one-verser) religious groups following a man with a mantra, and other examples. Renegade value abusers cause others to shy away from pursuing perfectly noble ambitions, because character assassination and associative black eyes are epidemic.

Thus you have the deficit in an impetus for value based education. especially in times like these.
wouldn't the lack of personalities in the public eye who are outstanding representatives of values indicate a lack of education in the field of values of the public ("Hey!! well I tell ya if he was lucky enough to get a leg over that supermodel for 2 years behind his wife's back he certainly gets my vote")

in other words the absence of value based education enables personalities like hitler to rise to power

Values have their own virtue and by themselves are nothing more than harmless entities with a definition; but how those values are applied by the individual is the crux of the matter. Yet the individual is often too distracted by straw dummyism to be able to separate issues and find out where the flaw is.
teaching values is slightly different from teaching theory or even prac.
discerning the nature of flaws is what value based knowledge addresses

This is conceptualized in the well-known analogy that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" and where the term "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes from.
Man has always had a devil of a time separating the good stuff from the bad so that it can be applied appropriately.
and the unsurpassed chaos of the contemporary age indicates how much success we are having in this 'separating' business

Good answers. Thank you.
But for the sake of argument, would values, (by definition being dependant upon some sort of code or principle) have to adhere to socially acceptable standard(s)? And if so, what standard(s)?

I recall Hitler had plenty of value based education, so can we consider him a renegade despite ample values? Or can we consider him as one who had values that only differed to the tune of about 6 million dead jews? Which was my whole point, in that, science applied can be just as deadly as values applied, leaving the individual as the determining factor. This leads to the conflict between individual standards versus accepted standards. I know this may contradict my first thought regarding the "self-exploration" of values by students, but that's exploration of values, not the acceptance of them.

I think ultimately, students should be encouraged as often as possible by their professors to be more independant in their approach to what they are taught and in how they may first percieve something. Because these days, too often it's just all about "fitting in".

Good answers. Thank you.
But for the sake of argument, would values, (by definition being dependant upon some sort of code or principle) have to adhere to socially acceptable standard(s)? And if so, what standard(s)?

I recall Hitler had plenty of value based education, so can we consider him a renegade despite ample values? Or can we consider him as one who had values that only differed to the tune of about 6 million dead jews? Which was my whole point, in that, science applied can be just as deadly as values applied, leaving the individual as the determining factor. This leads to the conflict between individual standards versus accepted standards. I know this may contradict my first thought regarding the "self-exploration" of values by students, but that's exploration of values, not the acceptance of them.

I think ultimately, students should be encouraged as often as possible by their professors to be more independant in their approach to what they are taught and in how they may first percieve something. Because these days, too often it's just all about "fitting in".

One can not avoid the "fitting in" issue - in other words there must always be some standard or value, from which other standards or values are derivatives - just like you are suggesting the standard/value that students be encouraged to be independent as a derivative (or more specifically, an antithesis) of the standard/value that they are expected to fit it - there is no stepping away from values. There is however the development of values - just because a value is developed (like say the values hitler adopted ) says nothing about the merit or the value

- in other words just because hitler adopted values does not mean that we should not adopt values (perhaps we should not adopt hitler's values) - we should however adopt better values, and this is the business of value based knowledge - if one takes the default position of demanding that no one should establish value based knowledge since it is a misuse of power, it means that the values that will be adopted will be determined by people's demands for sleeping, eating, mating and defending, which on a national level means war and conflict - thus its a misuse of power to not establish value based knowledge

There are moral values inherent in the strucrure and comprehension of most bodies of knowledge.

Honesty in one's work. Humility in the face of stubborn fact or unavoidable logic. Correction of error however fondly arrived at. Caring about something other than oneself. Recognition of knowledge and competence and value in disliked or unimpressive or unpleasant or odd people.

There are moral values inherent in the strucrure and comprehension of most bodies of knowledge.

Honesty in one's work. Humility in the face of stubborn fact or unavoidable logic. Correction of error however fondly arrived at. Caring about something other than oneself. Recognition of knowledge and competence and value in disliked or unimpressive or unpleasant or odd people.
then why are these values frequently hijacked by other values such as the pursuit for fame and adoration, the acquisition of money and power, etc etc

Shouldn't all of the professors in the hard sciences be able to figure out whether or not planned obsolescence is going on in cars? Do you think you are going to hear them talking about it?

psik

then why are these values frequently hijacked Let's say we are complex beings. All values compete, on occasion, for allegiance. Then the immediate question is not why, but how, and not hijack, but supersede - win the competition.

In this view, the profs job is done well if the inherent good values of the particular subject, embedded in the values of intellectual effort, scholarship, and learning generally, are establshed as strongly as possible in the students.

iceaura
“ then why are these values frequently hijacked ”
Let's say we are complex beings. All values compete, on occasion, for allegiance. Then the immediate question is not why, but how, and not hijack, but supersede - win the competition.

In this view, the profs job is done well if the inherent good values of the particular subject, embedded in the values of intellectual effort, scholarship, and learning generally, are establshed as strongly as possible in the students.

What are the inherent good values of physics?

What are the inherent good values of physics?

The scientific method?

Shouldn't all of the professors in the hard sciences be able to figure out whether or not planned obsolescence is going on in cars? Do you think you are going to hear them talking about it?

psik

Why do you need a professor in a hard science to work whether planned obsolescence is used in car manufacture?

The scientific method?
so in other words to determine the value of the applications of physics (like say nuclear warheads) all that is required is an examination whether they were scientifically carried out (ie they were detonated successfully and as anticipated)?

(notice how the lack of value based knowledge inherent to physics makes it virtually non-different from the practical based knowledge of physics)

The application of physics is called technology and doesn't use the same methods.

What are the inherent good values of physics? At a guess, acceptance of correction by rigorous abstraction, humility in the face of the natural (avoidance of glib appeal to the supernatural), recognition of the difficulty of understanding even simple things, value of diligent and concentrated intellectual effort on simple things,

for starters.

One can not avoid the "fitting in" issue - in other words there must always be some standard or value, from which other standards or values are derivatives - just like you are suggesting the standard/value that students be encouraged to be independent as a derivative (or more specifically, an antithesis) of the standard/value that they are expected to fit it - there is no stepping away from values. There is however the development of values - just because a value is developed (like say the values hitler adopted ) says nothing about the merit or the value

- in other words just because hitler adopted values does not mean that we should not adopt values (perhaps we should not adopt hitler's values) - we should however adopt better values, and this is the business of value based knowledge - if one takes the default position of demanding that no one should establish value based knowledge since it is a misuse of power, it means that the values that will be adopted will be determined by people's demands for sleeping, eating, mating and defending, which on a national level means war and conflict - thus its a misuse of power to not establish value based knowledge

Well-put and informative. Thankyou.

The application of physics is called technology and doesn't use the same methods.
whatever it is called, the value based knowledge behind it is unsatisfactory

At a guess, acceptance of correction by rigorous abstraction, humility in the face of the natural (avoidance of glib appeal to the supernatural), recognition of the difficulty of understanding even simple things, value of diligent and concentrated intellectual effort on simple things,

for starters.
so in other words one can determine the value of detonating an atomic bomb if it is done by persons in an environment that accepted rigorous abstraction, humility in the face of the natural (avoidance of glib appeal to the supernatural), recognition of the difficulty of understanding even simple things, value of diligent and concentrated intellectual effort on simple things.

whatever it is called, the value based knowledge behind it is unsatisfactory
Value-based knowledge? Politics, economic feasibility, need, etc. Nothing at all to do with the scientific method.

so in other words one can determine the value of detonating an atomic bomb if it is done by persons in an environment that accepted rigorous abstraction, humility in the face of the natural (avoidance of glib appeal to the supernatural), recognition of the difficulty of understanding even simple things, value of diligent and concentrated intellectual effort on simple things.
You are still missing the point. The detonation (indeed the construction) of nuclear (not atomic) bombs is/ was a political decision and divorced completely from science.
The "face value" of a nuclear weapon is whether it does the job it was intended to do - politically and militarily, not scientifically.
Science showed that it was possible (as was nuclear power, related issue).
Technology made it possible, politics did it.

just consider the problems of nuclear energy
do we have problems with it because we don't have enough people who know how to manufacture it properly or do we have problems with it because we don't have enough people who know how to use it properly?

First let's identify the problems.
1. Waste
2. Accidents
3. Weaponization

Science takes care of the first two.
You can take an ethics class to learn about why you shouldn't reduce cities to radioactive rubble.

Again, what's the problem?

Science takes care of the first two. I don't think it does, exactly. It can help with description of the options and consequences, but the motives for the decisions and the justifications of the actions will fall into other realms of human thought.

Do not underestimate the value - and the difficulty in establishing the value - of careful and honest and accurate description of the options and consequences. The rejection of the supernatural, the fictional, the anecdotal, and the authoritative, in establishing simple physical fact, is a scientific value and an ethical advance of great import.

First let's identify the problems.
1. Waste
2. Accidents
3. Weaponization

Science takes care of the first two.
You can take an ethics class to learn about why you shouldn't reduce cities to radioactive rubble.

Again, what's the problem?
science takes care of the first two?

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - einstein

My answer to any student interested in his/her personal spiritual development, the deeper meaning of his/her life, and the rest of that "what's it all about" stuff is: Actually you are not all that interesting. Don't be so self-indulgent! Think a bit less about yourself!

In my experience, the most well-balanced, well-liked and most useful individuals get on with their lives without introspection. Even during adolescence.

A quick question to all of you geniuses (and I don't use this term lightly), have any of your worked for many industrial companies? How about a personally owned business by the average joe? Or maybe just a landscaping job involving those of a different class?
All of these thoughts are great on paper. Being reduced to half the mind I used to have, it's dreadfully obvious how little teaching morals means to the average person. Being tossed into the labor force, there are 2 options: do the menial job you have done for the past 5 years (same old same old) or try to force yourself up the latter whether you deserve it or not (usually without an objective opinion).
In the "real" world of folks who aren't "learned" values and morals are just a justification clause not a mindset. Everyone is rushing around too much...how many people post on these sites anyway? That is how many people who care about values. (not everyone who posts thinks and changes to the objective and not everyone who doesn't sign on doesn't think; it's a push).
Just thought I would give some perspective from someone who ruined 2 years to learn a simple lesson of the average "joe".

My answer to any student interested in his/her personal spiritual development, the deeper meaning of his/her life, and the rest of that "what's it all about" stuff is: Actually you are not all that interesting. Don't be so self-indulgent! Think a bit less about yourself!

In my experience, the most well-balanced, well-liked and most useful individuals get on with their lives without introspection. Even during adolescence.

Heh, and I posted before reading this.
Good point River Ape, that's a much easier way to say my point.

A quick question to all of you geniuses (and I don't use this term lightly), have any of your worked for many industrial companies? How about a personally owned business by the average joe? Or maybe just a landscaping job involving those of a different class?
All of these thoughts are great on paper. Being reduced to half the mind I used to have, it's dreadfully obvious how little teaching morals means to the average person. Being tossed into the labor force, there are 2 options: do the menial job you have done for the past 5 years (same old same old) or try to force yourself up the latter whether you deserve it or not (usually without an objective opinion).
In the "real" world of folks who aren't "learned" values and morals are just a justification clause not a mindset. Everyone is rushing around too much...how many people post on these sites anyway? That is how many people who care about values. (not everyone who posts thinks and changes to the objective and not everyone who doesn't sign on doesn't think; it's a push).
Just thought I would give some perspective from someone who ruined 2 years to learn a simple lesson of the average "joe".

The next question is whether it has always been like this (in other words whether we are in the grips of a ingrained value system)
The question after that is whether we are capable of instigating changes in to such a value system

The changes would have to be made in the governmental level, aka, moral education in schools which is obvious prohibitted. With having the world holding billions of excess people it becomes nearly impossible to hold controlled education for even a fraction of them. With the concept of 7 degrees of separation, everyone intermingles with everyone else (no matter the location in the world) on some level. It is especially prevelant in the US where communication varies so greatly between classes. Parts can express a simple idea fluently without flaw where as others are stuck in individualistic thoughts with no means of being corrected if a malicious thought process emerges.
In general the public has turned towards the infamous "herd" mentality cited by many psychologists and has been running wild. In democracy, no herder or leader can arrive because the herd only wish for a "herd" personel (aka Bush) to relate to. Where is the hardass general who is smart enough to take control of the social structure?

SO, """The initial results of the survey, as reported in these pages several years ago, revealed that undergraduates are eager to explore spiritual interests and to talk about the deeper meaning and purpose of life. More than sixty percent of first-year students entering over 230 U.S. institutions of higher learning said they hoped to have an opportunity to develop their personal values, self-understanding, and maturity while at college."""

how heartwarming! Then, what happens to them? They take social science classes, get professors who believe all religions and cultures are equal, that there is no such thing as progress, and that cause and natural effect determinism is only a philosophical issue! Moreover, they then immerse their poor students into a confusing mass of myrads of conflicting theories filled with doubletalk, abstractions built upon abstractions, multiple meaning words and all using each other as references!

Is it any wonder when they ultimately graduate, they are no longer focussed or curious? All they have resigned themselves to do is get a decent job and make enough money to live a life filled with stuff for the rest of their remaining days!

charles