Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Jul 13, 7:57 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >My legislature demands that I teach this, failure to do so will result
in my
>> >termination.
>>
>> Herman doesn't think that legislatures should have the right to decide
>> curriculum - only subject matter academicians.
>
>And he is correct. The idea that the legislature, who knows nothing
>abouth math, chemistry, physics, literature, sociology, etc. should
>decide course content is absurd.... The inmates are running the
>asylum.
Democracy - the worst form of government - except for all the rest.
>> Other countries that outperform us in science and math tests are also
>> noted for being envious of American initiative and creativity. It
>> could very well be that there is a tradeoff between rigor and
>> creativity for all but the most intelligent (and maybe even them).
>
>However, it is precisely the "most intelligent" who are responsible
>for the creativity.
That is questionable.
In any event, in other countries, the most intelligent don't have so
much creativity.
>We have the 3rd largest population in the world. And the most of any
>*developed* country. (China & India are getting there. I expect
>China to overtake the U.S. in science and technology during this
century).
They may have a larger economy, but we will likely still be the
innovators, because China does not reward innovation, and indeed often
punishes it.
>It is not surprising that we would have more creative people than most
>other countries.
China has more "most intelligent" people than we do, by a factor of 4,
unless you assume that their population has a significantly different
bell curve. So if creativity is just another word for high
intelligence, they would have more creative people. But they don't.
>Perhaps what we need to do (this is VERY politically incorrect)
>is to separate those who can from those who can not very early on
>in school.
The United States is not that sort of country. If that is what we
"need" to do, we will find a different way, or choose a different
goal, because to do as you suggest would fundamentally violate our
cultural identity.
>Provide training (in the sense under discussion) for those
>who can't, and provide education (in the sense under discussion) for
>those who can.
Many who "can" don't *want*. And many of their parents don't "want",
either.
>It is my understanding that at least some countries already
>do this (e.g. Germany).
And Germany doesn't have nearly the innovation levels that we do. They
have some superb craftsmen, though, because they value that sort of
thing.
>One might argue that this will lead to a 2-tiered
>society, but I would argue that this is what we already have.
Not legally.
>The widening income gap in this country is driven by (IMO) the gap in
education
>between the poor and the economically well-to-do. The poor are poor
>precisely because they have below average intelligence and hence get
"training" instead
>of "education".
George Bush was economically well off. What's your explanation for
him?
Those Asian immigrants who come over tend to arrive fairly poor. What
is your explanation for their success?
Clearly socioeconomics does provide benefits and handicaps. It does
in Germany and in that ultimate meritocracy Singa****e. But the pride
of our system is our social mobility. Bill Clinton, whatever you
think of his politics, went from broken family poverty to the highest
office in the land. Obama likewise started rather low on the
socioeconomic totem pole.
It's a little harder to find such examples in the sciences, but one of
the 2006 Physics Nobelists was the son of a traveling salesman. Robert
Grubbs, one of the 2005 Chemistry Nobelist, grew up in rural Kentucky.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lojban language www.lojban.org
|
