Hmm, that's definately helpful. Do you think that bullshit leads to knowledge of a subject? Maybe in the desire to more fully explain/understand what one is being forced to expand upon?
Students are mostly lazy and want to get through school on the path of least resistence. This is actually what the modern democratic approach to schooling achieved. It is only in some schools that internal competition between students promotes a healthy pace of the whole class. Elsewhere, there is little or no competition, and students are only after making everything easy for themselves. The teacher cannot be automatically held accountable if students don't do well. Students are after their democratic rights, but these are in opposition to actually studying. It is not the teacher's fault that students are given the freedom to not study.
Bullshit leads to more bullshit, nothing else. If a student is demanded to write an essay on what he doesn't have a clue of, he can a) bullshit b) educate himself on the matter. A is obvious. But B carries the danger that the student will learn about said thing for the wrong reasons -- like just to get a good grade, or not to bullshit, but not learn about it because he'd truly be interested in said thing, or because said thing were important. This is how developing interest for the useless and the obscure (and thus, waste of time and effort) is nurtured.
i think bullshit might become knowledge when knowing the little of it gets you to wanting the all of it. It might be guilt (guilty of bullshitting and getting away with it) it might be fearing that someone is going to eventually call you on your shit so you decide to actually become fully educated about the subject, or you continue to bullshit, and continue to add relative things to strengthen your bullshit to the point when you go ah ha! i suppose bs has its place when youve failed to do your homework for real but you cant afford to get a shitty grade. if you can pull it off fine, but you know youre going to have to catch up soon or youll be really screwed somewhere down the line where knowing it is a must.
“There is something wrong with the curriculum, it is not fit for the student, hence gradation of classes for difficulty.” **************************************** Sounds like survival of the fittest. It’s an irresponsible approach. Curriculums that are irresponsible and ineffective generate a culture of students that bullshit. Those that created the curriculum were bullshitting. The teachers that abide by the curriculum are bullshitting. It’s only natural that students end up doing the same. Any curriculum that is not fit for the student as you stated is definitely flawed. “Excuse me, there most certainly are students that don't make an effort toward the class, and the teacher is not responsible for this individual.” **************************************** Excuse you, a teacher will not take responsibility if a curriculum is flawed. Many students would never take such a curriculum and a teacher that abides by it seriously. Those that do take a flawed curriculum seriously are not doing themselves or anybody else any favors. Such a curriculum does not place learning as primary. It’s all a petty competition for a grade. The competition is an illusion because nobody should be competing. If you are there to learn, there is no competition in that. Yet the curriculum is not set up for students that want to learn. It is completely flawed, and all the students within it suffer because it is flawed. Trying to get people thrown out of the class does not help them achieve their goal of bullshitting their way to get the grade, and the ridiculous piece of paper. “Yes, by having classes that are based on the abilities of the students.” **************************************** Absolutely not. Classes should be based on subject and subject only. “No one wants to see someone left behind. But that's just as bad as holding someone down for another student.” **************************************** Nobody is holding anybody down. You are attempting to affect those people from trying to do whatever it takes to get their grade for you own pursuit of some sort of imaginary education. You exist in the same flawed classroom. Yourself and anybody in the class that has to deal with your sink or swim delusion have no reason to be in conflict. If your objective is to learn, you are certainly on the wrong planet. Teachers are there to make money. The cur “I certainly didn't say that we shouldn't attempt to help these people. By providing lower level classes, tutoring and whatnot we are giving them options.” **************************************** Options for what? How about providing them with a good grade in a bullshit class so they can get on with their life? “Look, I'm not saying, play favorites in the opposite direction and speed up the class. I'm just saying, provide what you agree to at the outset of the class. Along with tutoring and lower level classes, no one is left behind.” **************************************** You proposing that you set people behind so that nobody is left behind. Why not make a petition so that these people can get a free A in the class so that they can go away, and you can sit there learning whatever precious knowledge you so vehemently seek. “You certainly wouldn't be responsible for the dumbing down of America by holding back able-bodied students, now would you?” **************************************** Able-bodied students? Give me a break. This isn’t the military. The only thing that is dumbing down America is America. If a curriculum is flawed, I would go about attacking the curriculum. Not the students that are subject to it. Please go back to your hole of stupidity from whence you emerged. “Students are mostly lazy” **************************************** Wrong. Try proving this load of fallacy please. “want to get through school on the path of least resistence. This is actually what the modern democratic approach to schooling achieved.” **************************************** Right. Hence, bullshitting. You go through the bullshit curriculum on the path of least resistance. Anybody trying to prevent you from doing so is most certainly not looking out for your best interest. Students are not there because they really want to be there to learn. They are there because they have to be there in their own best interest to get the highest scores as possible. “It is only in some schools that internal competition between students promotes a healthy pace of the whole class.” **************************************** Internal competition does not promote a healthy pace. It only promotes slowbilization. Bullshit becomes knowledge when you indirectly learn something while bullshitting. There is not much more to it.
What is irresponsible is not allowing for different levels of students. It is incredibly absurd to believe that all students can do the same in just one class. You sound like you're going to suggest next that if the teacher is prepared and educated enough everyone will get the exact same grade. Get off it cool skill, students come in all different levels of intelligence. This is all irrelevant to what I'm saying... Then you must accept that there will be students that take the class with ease, and are, in part, wasting their time, and there will be students who won't understand it. Well, I'm somewhat relieved that I didn't have to hear your BS, since you apparantly passed out from lack of oxygen to your brain. One should at least attempt to get any education that they can. I'm sad for the kind of classes you've sat idly through and thought that you could do nothing for yourself. I didn't realize I was talking to a true Stoic. What bullshit class? I don't know what you're talking about little man. Well, you most certainly would be dropped from my class. I don't know where you've come up with this scenario of a flawed curriculum, because I've not taken any classes that I didn't read the curriculum beforehand.
Irrelevant. If the curriculum was not flawed, this mix up in learning pacing would not occur. It is not the fault of the students that the curriculum is flawed. You asserted that the students should be forced into a lower level class. They should not. They have just as much right to be in the class as anybody else. They are interfering your learning progress. The objective of a student in a flawed curriculum is not to learn. It is to get the grade. Hopefully without trying to step on other students to get it. As far as this discussion goes, they have not interfered in your ability to get a grade. If they have, it is unintentional, and can be worked out. There is no need to intentionally try to get people removed from a class that they have every right to be in. The only person that does not have a right to be in the class is the person that is intentionally trying to prevent other students from getting their grade. It is an irresponsible survival of the fittest primitive approach. Trying to get people thrown out of the class does not help them achieve their goal of bullshitting their way to get the grade, and the ridiculous piece of paper. Won’t understand what? That it is a waste of time? You are doing taking the classes. You obviously have some reason for doing something that is a waste of time. You would rather try to get students thrown out because you are trying to decide for them what is and is not a waste of their time. Furthermore, you tend to alleviate the responsibility in talking in terms of the class, and focus on your own self-righteous predicament over the predicament of all. LOL. What BS? Do you actually believe there is any point in taking a flawed curriculum seriously? Do the time, make the most out of the whole farce, and get the grade. Then graduate, get a job, make the most out of the whole farce, get paid doing it, and die. Little man? What are you Xena the warrior gorilla? I am saying that instead of trying to have them exiled into a lower level class, you might as well try to make the school give them the grade they want so that they do not have to go to the class. They can spend their time doing something more productive for them. They get the grade they want without having to do the time for it. Meanwhile you can sit there in the class follow special curriculum that you so very much enjoy learning. Obviously, nobody would want to be in your class. Control freak fascists that drop students for petty reasons do not make good teachers. You might as well drop everybody from the class while you’re at it. I doubt very much that I would get dropped from your class. Teachers love me. They cannot help it, I make their job easy. I shall repeat myself for your safety. Any curriculum in which every student in the class is not following the set pace is a flawed curriculum. A proper curriculum, would mean that the pace is set correctly, the materials and methods are well defined for practical education, and the responsible teacher is doing the proper job to ensure that all the students are do well accordingly.
Cool: Mighty hard with your fat head blocking the entrance. Darkeyed: What dude means by 'flaw' in the educational curriculum is the grading system employed by it and the lowering standards mentally challenged. But how else to inspire those that would rather be picking lint off their privates than read other than to turn reading, say, into a contest? I'm assuming you're addressing me. I think the most powerful catalyst for bullshit transforming itself into knowledge is the being exposed as bullshit. That boy I mentioned just now bullshitting his way through a date to get in your Calvin's? Imagine you calling his bluff because you know more about diesel engines. You'd make him blush for the night, as he’s been discovered and must play it down, but a hundred bucks says he will be at home the next day googling for diesel engines. The embarrassment has opened the door for pomposity to cross and mature itself into wisdom. In other words, knowledge. And on the next date with some other girl he's dropped you for because he presumes she's stupider…. he'll know all about engines until he mistakenly lands on “nominalism”. And if he’s exposed that day as well, he’ll be spending the next day teaching himself the philosophy. This over and over and over again like a broken carousel, "but a little wiser for the wear..." How can one claim to know something they do not understand? No one understands those impossible descriptions of god. This is why all religion and her adherents are- here it comes- a blob of anceint BULLSHIT. Love this, Sade writes of a last encounter of a dying man with a priest. Preacher man goes: Dying man says: Therefore.. The priest ends up fornicating with this dying man because he realized his knowledge of god had been exposed as bullshit....... and he gave it up. Water: Yeah, but what’s learned?
No. That's your mother. Just show her a cheeseburger, and throw it at the field goal. She'll gladly go make the touchdown so you can go slither along into your obese hole.
Emmm ...I wouldn't consider "expand[ing] on things logically" as bullshit. If it's logical, it may be extraneous/superfluous or irrelevant, but I don't think it's appropriate to call that "bullshit". There may be different reasons, but I think an important factor is: there being an actual motivation - other than a certificate with your name on it - to learn it in the first place! I'm sorry, but I don't see the point in acquiring knowledge for it's own sake. Maybe you mean to "satisfy one's curiosity"? That I would see the merit in, because - in as much as curiosity is a desire - you are simply satisfying a desire. Or if you had advocated acquiring knowledge which could be applied "for a useful purpose" - or even acquiring knowledge which may potentially be used for a useful purpose at some stage in the future - again, I could see where you're coming from! But simply acquiring knowledge "for it's own sake"? Not even to "sharpen one's mental faculties"? For something which consumes so much time and effort, and can bring so much stress, to say that you are doing it "for it's own sake" seems nonsensical! Do people eat food just for the sake of eating food? Or do they do it because it tastes nice, and it satisfies their nutritional requirements? If they eat just for the sake of eating, I suspect it's quite likely a sign that something is wrong! ------------------------- Emmm ....why's that then? :bugeye: ------------------------- ...either the word "lazy" shouldn't be used here; or it should be interpreted as without the negative connotations usually associated with it. In a lot of cases, the trait you are referring to merely indicates that a person uses his resources wisely, and - not being duped into thinking that the learning pursued in school is (by default) actually of any significant worth - doesn't waste his energies. That's a very positive trait in my view! The hackneyed notion that "elbow grease never fails" is for morons! Again, you say this like it's a bad thing! What kind of moron goes for the path of "most resistance"? The "path of least resistance" - in this case - is the most intelligent one as far as I can tell. School, to a large extent, is pointless: and any person who seeks to minimize the amount of time they spend in pointless endeavors is merely being rational - their approach is commendable! ...so now you're implying that they should make things difficult for themselves? ...but that's what you've just advocated - no? After basics in the three R's (Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic) have been acquired - and with which the student can then direct their own learning - what other purpose is there for learning in schools (i.e. other than for "getting a good grade")? Generally speaking, much of what is learnt is forgotten after it carries a student through the end-of-year exams; and what actually remains within recall would be far better learnt if the motivation to learn came from the student themselves, rather than from the teacher. ...but so much of what students learn in school is actually not important; or relevant; or useful! i.e. what I would wager is the majority of what is taught in school Speaking of bullshit, you seemed to have mastered the art! ---------------------- Non-enforced Learning
YamaYama: You have provided some intelligent points. 1. I've had discussions before about the use of the word lazy. It seems to be some sort of cultural illusion that people apply negative connotations to. Laziness as it is known, may not really exist. 2. Path of least resistance would be the wisest path. The academic setting is typically hardly academic. You have a joke of a grading scale, and a joke of a curriculum. Progressive curriculums allow students to be free to learn. Furthermore, they produce much more insightful individuals. These students tent to be more aware of the implications of face-value cultural assumptions that are often mistaken for truth. Such nonsense as: laziness, sink or swim, spoon-feeding, somebody will always fail, and I can provide a ton more. They are all cultural gibberish. Note, Dark: “It is incredibly absurd to believe that all students can do the same in just one class.” The only way one would think this would be absurd is if one has never witnessed it first hand. The flawed curriculum in many standards today either pump out malignant ultratroopers or chop liver. That and radicals breezing along and at the same time pressing against the institution. There is nothing wrong with acquiring knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Acquiring information for the sake of gaining information may seem circular. But only if you literate it incorrectly. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge seems similar to acquiring money for the sake of having money. I am acquiring money, and have no intention of doing anything with it. I’m just getting it to have it. Nothing more. There is no intrinsic benefit. In the same way, one may acquire knowledge just to have it without necessarily satisfying any curiosity or without necessarily doing anything with it. This is a pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. It can be said that doing so would not be beneficial in any way. It may not seem to have any apparent intrinsic value. However, believing so would pose a problem when knowledge is in itself intrinsically valuable. It must be you then. Unless you would actually believe that somebody 5'8 and 140lbs could be a walking puddle of dolorosa like yourself.
I didn't say learning for the sake of learning. Knowledge is applicable whereas learning, or the act thereof, is not. I haven't and no one ever has. People are just not the same. Learning styles are not the same. This is an example of idealism gone way too far. I have never been in a class where a single person, not one single person, was doing the same as I had been. I have had some amazing teachers, and have taken upwards of 100 high school+ level courses. The minimum students in any class I have had was around 15. That leaves me with about 100 teachers, 1500 students. You would think that once I would have someone do the same as I have. Nope. Never. Possibly there had been someone who had the same grade as me, but you and I both know that the grade doesn't denote the level of understanding. This is absurd and if you insist in believing in absurdities, there is no arguing with you, logically. Honestly, your argument is pretty terrible as well. I'll give you a similar example: The only reason that one would think that God's existence is absurd is if one has never witnessed his existence firsthand. Which are you asking people to do? Seek out the experience? Or believe blindly in it? Oh, I know...you want everyone to believe in something absurd, because someone else said that it exists, and it is great. Things don't change overnight, they have to go through trial and error. And, as far as I see, making classes specifically designed for the student's abilities works well, as long the teachers all are fair, and stick to their curriculum.
Speak for yourself. There are a number of people in this forum alone that have encountered curriculums that border progressive. The fact that you have not witnessed something first hand does not automatically necessitate its nonexistence. You are obviously a product of your own limited dead zone. Not necessarily. Just because you never encountered a progressive curriculum does not make it necessary for it not to exist. In the same way, any person exposed to only a progressive curriculum would be far off to believe a flawed curriculum does not exist. This has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. To claim that something does not exist without witnessing it firsthand. I have never been to Alaska to witness it first hand. Therefore, Alaska does not exist, and it would be absurd to think it does. Get real. You have never in your entire schooling of all these teachers and hundreds of students witnessed a progressive curriculum. Who cares? Should I be surprised? I might be if you were one of the few that were fortunate enough to be exposed to anything near a real progressive curriculum. Another completely off improvable load of cultural retardism. They do not “have” to do anything. You are applying necessities to situations out of the air. You cannot prove such garbage. You cannot provide any practical purpose for adhering to such garbage limitations on yourself and others. Creating classes based specifically on student’s abilities is complete madness. Any curriculum that comes even close to progressive would throw that load right out of the window. A progressive curriculum is designed according to material and only material. Methods of education including pace is set according to top standards. Teachers are to ensure that students are free to learn the material according to the pace of the class. The overall understanding of the material for every student at the end of the day rests on the teacher. Furthermore, a progressive curriculum would never in its right mind focus solely on academics. There is as much a necessity of social interaction in any group learning situation (more than one student) that a progressive curriculum holds itself accountable for. Classes are not designed as you say specifically according to the abilities of the students. The designers consisting of staff and student alike develop a curriculum based on what designers believe are subjects that are important to the course of study. Again, not based on the ability of students. Your assertion that a single subject matter have separate classes each with their own teaching methods according to student ability doesn’t fly in a progressive curriculum.
As I said cool skill, I cannot have a rational discussion with someone who believes in something absurd. That, itself, becomes absurd.
More like the both of you. The absurdity is what happens to every thread when two morons degrade to a mound of- wait for it- bullshit. Pretty neat title for a thread, yes? See, all you need is for one moron to quip 'survival of the fittest'. To which the second moron naturally reacts with her altruistic, politically correct regurgitations. And then when both morons climax you get... Moron 1: Moron 2: Surprise surprise, a bull session between morons on God. God. Who writes you all, anyway? Harry Frankfurt. (who rules) And I'm on to you Cool Skill. You reported my post.
Even if there are smaller classes for particularly capable students, there will still (..albeit to a lesser degree) be disparity between the abilities of students. Trying to fit all students into the same mold is one of the inevitable shortcomings of today's educational system. It has espoused an 'assembly-line' mentality and approach. Individuality, creativity, and unique ability are simply not accommodated! Ignored; quashed; perhaps even killed ...their inevitable disuse is appropriately lamented! The level of ability you allude to in these posts would be difficult to nurture in any school environment. Even if you had the smaller classes you were campaigning for; and even in the relatively-rare circumstance where all students do have similar abilities: the amount of attention each pupil can receive is still limited. It isn't anything like the one-on-one attention they would (very often - if not in most cases) be able to receive in a home-schooling environment. To offer a rather crude hypothesis, I would guess that: the possibilities for a pupil's potential to be fully-nurtured is inversely proportional to the number of other pupils their teacher has to tend to. If a class only has two or three pupils in it though, what is the point of sending them to school in the first place? Why not leave them at home, and let them learn according to their own interest and at their own pace - simply trying to ensure that one-on-one tuition and assistance is available when it is needed? Then there will be far less obstacles which inhibit them from reaching their full potential. Their intellect can become the 'soaring eagle' it has the potential to become - rather than the bruised and battered 'common crow' that never sets flight (..aaah - where would we be without cheesy metaphors)! ----------------------- In attempts to mollify annoyed readers, allow me to offer a brief anecdote: My mother was a secondary-school teacher for 6-7 years; she spent 2-4 years (..I can't remember - sorry) in a teacher-training college after finishing school. Her own mother was a school teacher her entire working life (..considerably less people went to school back then I believe - and I don't even know if there was such a thing as 'secondary', or 'high' school). When I first shared my views on learning with her (..to-a-large-extent that it makes far more sense to learn in freedom than to learn in a prison) about three years ago, she literally recoiled her head in attempts to convey her dislike for my words; and ascribed an appropriately-forgettable polysyllable ("poppycock", "bolderdash", "hogwash" - one of those I think) to my views. In a mixture of depression and anger, I dropped the subject, and purposely avoided bringing it up for over two years. Then a few weeks ago, I was at home for a few days, and the subject came up again in a rather protracted discussion about life-in-general [ :shiver: ]. I was rather pleasantly-surprised to realize that she had actually warmed considerably to the views I had expressed previously! In fact, she was saying that she "whole-heartedly" agrees with some of my points. ....Well fancy that! This was a humble acknowledgment from a former teacher them-self! A retreat from someone who came from a tradition of school-teaching! Essentially, I'm suggesting that you don't dismiss - outright - the concept of home-schooling; at least give yourself time to read up on it before knocking it. As others who were initially so markedly-opposed to the concept have 'warmed' to it, so may you! ....because - in my view - the current educational system and "bullshit" go hand-in-hand! --------------------- Learn in Freedom
Yes because you are the moron. Nobody is talking about God. If you really think there is any sense in petitioning to have people thrown out of a classroom despite breaking no rules, your brain is as rotten as your breath. Personally I have no idea which post you are talking about. Perhaps you would provide a link so we can laugh at which of your posts got reported. You probably reported yourself while you were trying to reply to your own thread. Who's the moron now?
