Women and the School System

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

There is another point here as well that I want to touch on–old lit, while maybe tedious and hard to read, the writing itself teaches in a way that modern literature cannot hope to equal. The very cognitive process of translating “old english I’m not sure of” to “english in today’s words” inside the brain forms the ability to process and think critically and adds to the vocabulary. Vocabulary is a fundamental building block to all human communication and old classic lit uses a variety of words that nobody will likely encounter in day-to-day life. Consequently it teaches or reinforces cognitive abilities–and especially “mental flexibility”-- that are already sorely or almost completely lacking.
[/quote]

I never thought about it this way but it makes perfect sense.[/quote]

I know, it’s an interesting phenomenon. It’s incredibly important, therefore, to be able to translate those processes as many different ways as possible. I was editing my post when you wrote this, but I was going to say that there are entire books on the subject (compendiums of scholarly studies, of course). Vocabulary size is directly proportional to reading comprehension, and as an extension of that critical thought capabilities…even if you never use the words in conversation :). The fact you translated them and their meanings helps build those cognitive cross-bridges.[/quote]

That’s actually how I prefer to study. I like to involve as many senses as I can use to acquire, synthesize, recall, and apply what I was studying. Helps build synapses! (I don’t really know if it does, but I like saying that)[/quote]

This is exactly the reason why I prefer to use the King James version of the Bible. Having to stop and think about what you read actually forces meditation on the subject that you don’t get with other versions that put scripture in modern language.

Edit: Not trying to derail with religious debate, simply further illustrating the point.[/quote]

Hardest part is how damn time-consuming it is![/quote]

True. Right now I’m reading a biography of Thomas Jefferson which of course includes many quotes by him and his contemporaries. While I normally read at a pace that might approach “speed reading” I find I have to slow way down and often re-read these quotes. The flowery language of the late 1700’s and early 1800’s forces me to do so.

It’s kinda fun in a way, like deciphering a code of sorts.[/quote]

I have a found old books are best read in ebook format. eBook readers such as kindle have built in dictionaries where you simply highlight the word or phrase you don’t understand and the definition pops up.

I recently read a book written in 1922 and refer to the built in dictionary probably every 10 pages.

122

Did you guys hear that newly discovered quote that was unearthed from very rare, hard-to-find Benjamin Franklin writings?:
“If you like your Republic, you can keep your Republic. Period.”

123

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

At what point did I claim that Moby Dick was a book solely about a man catching a fish? Man versus Nature is certainly timeless but its expressed in modern works as well.

[/quote]
In case anyone who has read Moby-Dick or is planning on reading it wants to know, at the risk of sounding presumptuous, it wasn’t really about man vs nature. It was more about man vs God. [/quote]
Chapter 47 I think is pretty key to the novel. By nature please read me as uncaring deterministic fate and chance versus free will. Note that there need be no god in debate about free will.

125

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Tradition and history are good enough reasons to read literature from the past be it poetry, prose, fiction, non-fiction, philosophy, history, etc. All of it is connected anyway. The history of Western literature is a part of and reflects the history of Western culture.[/quote]

Oh now wait a minute, don’t take my comments above as a statement that tradition and history aren’t good enough reasons. I fully believe they are. However, that thought of mine came to mind and then groo ended up asking for “other reasons”.

The flip side to this one though, zecarlo, is that you have to admit the same about reading the Bible because as you said it is good enough reason and it is all connected anyway.

[quote] To understand the Renaissance you need to be familiar with its art, philosophy, science, politics, and other things that influenced the period which is now a part of history. All of these elements that make up history, that act upon history, are what created our culture and is behind why we are what we are today and how we are today. We didn’t get here by accident. We don’t think the way we do by accident.

By preserving and studying the elements of our past that formed our culture and created our traditions we can keep from straying too far from those values. If we say that there is nothing of value there then we would be saying that we are not better but rather the same or worse than our predecessors since their goal was to improve the human condition. If they failed then we are the product of failure…centuries of failure. [/quote]

Fully and emphatically agreed.

Once again fully agreed, particularly about Rome: that was very much true. This statement of yours also means that this PC “diversity assurance” crap is just that–and dangerous. To clarify, this doesn’t mean we get to bash other cultures or ostracize people or any of these other things. It does, however, mean that there is an American ethos of some kind–obviously much less clear cut than say, a Chinese ethos, due to ethnic heterogeneity–and that this should be held intact.

Eco comes to mind from the other thread as well. A collection of self-centered strangers is much easier to manipulate!

126

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
During the Civil War documentary on PBS, which I’m sure most here are familiar with, they would recite actual letters from soldiers. LOL and emoticons did not apply. They actually communicated. [/quote]

Ken Burns’ Civil War is one of the all-time greatest documentaries ever.

His Baseball, 9 inning volume documentary is damned close too :stuck_out_tongue:

127

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I recently read a book written in 1922 and refer to the built in dictionary probably every 10 pages.

[/quote]

Something came to mind a couple days ago when considering this thread and vocabulary. I believe that the literates of years or centuries past had a considerably larger vocabulary than we do now. Obviously the number of literates was infinitely smaller than today (insert high school joke here). But I haven’t been able to find anything to see if I was correct in that hypothesis.

128

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I recently read a book written in 1922 and refer to the built in dictionary probably every 10 pages.

[/quote]

Something came to mind a couple days ago when considering this thread and vocabulary. I believe that the literates of years or centuries past had a considerably larger vocabulary than we do now. Obviously the number of literates was infinitely smaller than today (insert high school joke here). But I haven’t been able to find anything to see if I was correct in that hypothesis.[/quote]

This is probably true. One of the reasons for that could be the smaller pool that was being educated at a higher level. It is much easier to groom the exceptional students to be truly exceptional when you don’t have to spend three days hammering home a topic that a third of the class will never understand, it took that long for another third to get it, and the last third has been asleep or working on another classes homework because they understood two and a half days ago. Our education system is geared towards that middle third. Then you have a ton of federal dollars spent to keep that bottom third rocking along so that they don’t feel inferior, but know one stops to think about that top third. They are either given the lip-service of “Your so smart, you can do anything you want” with nothing really to develop that intelligence, or they are buried in busy work because the teacher is annoyed by their boredom.

129

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I recently read a book written in 1922 and refer to the built in dictionary probably every 10 pages.

[/quote]

Something came to mind a couple days ago when considering this thread and vocabulary. I believe that the literates of years or centuries past had a considerably larger vocabulary than we do now. Obviously the number of literates was infinitely smaller than today (insert high school joke here). But I haven’t been able to find anything to see if I was correct in that hypothesis.[/quote]

It’s kind of a general trend you see nowadays. The more people that are allowed or can do something, the less it is valued, eg voting. Everyone is allowed to vote nowadays, and you commonly see super low turn-outs, especially amongst younger people.

130

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I recently read a book written in 1922 and refer to the built in dictionary probably every 10 pages.

[/quote]

Something came to mind a couple days ago when considering this thread and vocabulary. I believe that the literates of years or centuries past had a considerably larger vocabulary than we do now. Obviously the number of literates was infinitely smaller than today (insert high school joke here). But I haven’t been able to find anything to see if I was correct in that hypothesis.[/quote]

I have definitely read that average vocabularies are shrinking. Vocabularies for college graduates, I think, too.

131

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I recently read a book written in 1922 and refer to the built in dictionary probably every 10 pages.

[/quote]

Something came to mind a couple days ago when considering this thread and vocabulary. I believe that the literates of years or centuries past had a considerably larger vocabulary than we do now. Obviously the number of literates was infinitely smaller than today (insert high school joke here). But I haven’t been able to find anything to see if I was correct in that hypothesis.[/quote]

I have definitely read that average vocabularies are shrinking. Vocabularies for college graduates, I think, too.[/quote]

I think the differing pace of our present vs past lifestyles is partially to blame. In the soundbite/GIF world we live in eloquence has lost its value and been replaced by “140 character” communications for the sake of brevity.

132

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
This is probably true. One of the reasons for that could be the smaller pool that was being educated at a higher level. It is much easier to groom the exceptional students to be truly exceptional when you don’t have to spend three days hammering home a topic that a third of the class will never understand, it took that long for another third to get it, and the last third has been asleep or working on another classes homework because they understood two and a half days ago. Our education system is geared towards that middle third. Then you have a ton of federal dollars spent to keep that bottom third rocking along so that they don’t feel inferior, but know one stops to think about that top third. They are either given the lip-service of “Your so smart, you can do anything you want” with nothing really to develop that intelligence, or they are buried in busy work because the teacher is annoyed by their boredom.[/quote]

I don’t agree with you. I think most kids are put into tracks to prevent this problem. Dumb kids are placed with other dumb kids, smart kids with other smart kids, and so on. That’s how they did it in both public school and private school when I was younger and I ain’t that old. Unless things have dramatically changed recently I think your entire premise is erroneous and I also think you’re making up examples to support your argument. Where do you have evidence of your last sentence?

I don’t want to put words in your mouth but you seem to be supporting a system that neglects the bottom third and concentrates on the top third. Well the top third is certainly being catered to. Smart kids are being challenged, I don’t know who told you otherwise. Maybe some smart kids in poor school systems are being neglected, but that’s the exception.

The bottom third absolutely cannot be neglected. Education is paramount to a high functioning society. I am NOT saying the current system is fine, I’m only saying education is important to all segments of society. We just need to be more pragmatic and accept tracking.

133

How bad is it really? If you want a tough boy and want to allow him to act like a boy get him involved in competitive sports. And allow him to play with other boys. All that natural behavior can be expressed outside of the classroom.

Everyone needs to learn how to resist impulses and sit and shut the fuck up for long periods of time at some point in life. Do you think it’s natural to sit in a professional meeting for hours on end? No, it’s not. But we are a civil society so you suck it up. Boys need to learn how to do it sooner than later. Or else you have a bunch of barbarians when they’re adults.

Roughhousing and shit like that can happen when the boy is playing sports or playing with his friends. Getting kids to be respectful, keep silent, and listen isn’t a bad thing. We live in the 21st century. The fact of life is that most men will have to interact with women at some point in their professional life. People are acting like these kids are being forced to act effeminate.

Be a strong man, be the head of your household, allow your boy to be active and have friends, and there won’t be a problem. Don’t blame the teacher if your boy is soft or girlish.

134

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
This is probably true. One of the reasons for that could be the smaller pool that was being educated at a higher level. It is much easier to groom the exceptional students to be truly exceptional when you don’t have to spend three days hammering home a topic that a third of the class will never understand, it took that long for another third to get it, and the last third has been asleep or working on another classes homework because they understood two and a half days ago. Our education system is geared towards that middle third. Then you have a ton of federal dollars spent to keep that bottom third rocking along so that they don’t feel inferior, but know one stops to think about that top third. They are either given the lip-service of “Your so smart, you can do anything you want” with nothing really to develop that intelligence, or they are buried in busy work because the teacher is annoyed by their boredom.[/quote]

I don’t agree with you. I think most kids are put into tracks to prevent this problem. Dumb kids are placed with other dumb kids, smart kids with other smart kids, and so on. That’s how they did it in both public school and private school when I was younger and I ain’t that old. Unless things have dramatically changed recently I think your entire premise is erroneous and I also think you’re making up examples to support your argument. Where do you have evidence of your last sentence?

I don’t want to put words in your mouth but you seem to be supporting a system that neglects the bottom third and concentrates on the top third. Well the top third is certainly being catered to. Smart kids are being challenged, I don’t know who told you otherwise. Maybe some smart kids in poor school systems are being neglected, but that’s the exception.

The bottom third absolutely cannot be neglected. Education is paramount to a high functioning society. I am NOT saying the current system is fine, I’m only saying education is important to all segments of society. We just need to be more pragmatic and accept tracking.[/quote]

Private school systems do an excellent job of grooming children based on their potential. I was referring to and work in a public school system. I was the smart kid that slept thru most of my classes because they had to take the teachers away from the advanced classes to add another lower level class. Even in the more advanced high school classes that I did have 5 to 10 of us would nap because the rest of the class just didn’t get it. Half the teachers would give you busy work because you “weren’t paying attention in class” if you got caught doing your homework from another class or not really paying attention. Public school systems try to cram a lot of kids through a one size fits all mold that really only works for the middle. Money is thrown at misguided efforts to normalize the education model of the bottom third, who am not advocating leaving behind by the way, when in reality, a lot of these kids would be better served by getting them off the traditional track and into more vocational style learning fields. The current system for the most part is broken and the recently introduced common core material just makes the round hole/square peg problem that much worse.

135

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I recently read a book written in 1922 and refer to the built in dictionary probably every 10 pages.

[/quote]

Something came to mind a couple days ago when considering this thread and vocabulary. I believe that the literates of years or centuries past had a considerably larger vocabulary than we do now. Obviously the number of literates was infinitely smaller than today (insert high school joke here). But I haven’t been able to find anything to see if I was correct in that hypothesis.[/quote]

I have definitely read that average vocabularies are shrinking. Vocabularies for college graduates, I think, too.[/quote]

I have no evidence to support my claim, but it seems clear this is a result of less book reading. TV shows (even good ones) and reading shit on the internet isn’t going to build up a vocabulary like reading a good novel will. I know when I read a good book my vocabulary gets better. Read some Cormac McCarthy and if your like me you’ll be consulting your dictionary often and learn some new words by the time your done.

136

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
This is probably true. One of the reasons for that could be the smaller pool that was being educated at a higher level. It is much easier to groom the exceptional students to be truly exceptional when you don’t have to spend three days hammering home a topic that a third of the class will never understand, it took that long for another third to get it, and the last third has been asleep or working on another classes homework because they understood two and a half days ago. Our education system is geared towards that middle third. Then you have a ton of federal dollars spent to keep that bottom third rocking along so that they don’t feel inferior, but know one stops to think about that top third. They are either given the lip-service of “Your so smart, you can do anything you want” with nothing really to develop that intelligence, or they are buried in busy work because the teacher is annoyed by their boredom.[/quote]

I don’t agree with you. I think most kids are put into tracks to prevent this problem. Dumb kids are placed with other dumb kids, smart kids with other smart kids, and so on. That’s how they did it in both public school and private school when I was younger and I ain’t that old. Unless things have dramatically changed recently I think your entire premise is erroneous and I also think you’re making up examples to support your argument. Where do you have evidence of your last sentence?

I don’t want to put words in your mouth but you seem to be supporting a system that neglects the bottom third and concentrates on the top third. Well the top third is certainly being catered to. Smart kids are being challenged, I don’t know who told you otherwise. Maybe some smart kids in poor school systems are being neglected, but that’s the exception.

The bottom third absolutely cannot be neglected. Education is paramount to a high functioning society. I am NOT saying the current system is fine, I’m only saying education is important to all segments of society. We just need to be more pragmatic and accept tracking.[/quote]

Private school systems do an excellent job of grooming children based on their potential. I was referring to and work in a public school system. I was the smart kid that slept thru most of my classes because they had to take the teachers away from the advanced classes to add another lower level class. Even in the more advanced high school classes that I did have 5 to 10 of us would nap because the rest of the class just didn’t get it. Half the teachers would give you busy work because you “weren’t paying attention in class” if you got caught doing your homework from another class or not really paying attention. Public school systems try to cram a lot of kids through a one size fits all mold that really only works for the middle. Money is thrown at misguided efforts to normalize the education model of the bottom third, who am not advocating leaving behind by the way, when in reality, a lot of these kids would be better served by getting them off the traditional track and into more vocational style learning fields. The current system for the most part is broken and the recently introduced common core material just makes the round hole/square peg problem that much worse.[/quote]

Okay, I’m not going to disagree with your personal experiences. I admit my post was based on my personal experiences. I went to private school daycare through kindergarten, public school 1st-8th grade, and then private Catholic high school.

When I was in public school, they tracked. I was in the PG county (Maryland) public school system, which is one of the worst in the country. I was set up with the smart kids and was challenged enough until 8th grade. 8th grade was a joke but it had more to do with having several teachers taking the year off due to illness and having substitutes that were basically just chaperons. So I can relate to your experience of doing nothing throughout a school day. And then private Catholic high school was like it sounds.

Also, I didn’t make it clear in my first post, but I completely agree with you about the vocational route. That’s what I meant about being pragmatic and embracing tracking. I don’t think everyone needs to know calculus especially if they aren’t equipped to learn it or simply don’t give a shit about it.

I think we just had two very different experiences and it’s shaped our opinions. I’m surprised in the advanced classes you weren’t challenged. The kids who didn’t “get it” shouldn’t have been in those classes. I think if tracking was done right it would be very effective in allowing the smart kids to flourish, the middle kids to be average, and the dumb kids to at least learn the basics and possibly get on a more realistic path.

137

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
The current system for the most part is broken and the recently introduced common core material just makes the round hole/square peg problem that much worse.[/quote]

Can you elaborate on the common core material? I’m interested in knowing what is considered core these days.

138

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I recently read a book written in 1922 and refer to the built in dictionary probably every 10 pages.

[/quote]

Something came to mind a couple days ago when considering this thread and vocabulary. I believe that the literates of years or centuries past had a considerably larger vocabulary than we do now. Obviously the number of literates was infinitely smaller than today (insert high school joke here). But I haven’t been able to find anything to see if I was correct in that hypothesis.[/quote]

I have definitely read that average vocabularies are shrinking. Vocabularies for college graduates, I think, too.[/quote]

I have no evidence to support my claim, but it seems clear this is a result of less book reading. TV shows (even good ones) and reading shit on the internet isn’t going to build up a vocabulary like reading a good novel will. I know when I read a good book my vocabulary gets better. Read some Cormac McCarthy and if your like me you’ll be consulting your dictionary often and learn some new words by the time your done.[/quote]

You’re telling me you had to look up what a surbated company of catamites maundering canticles at the foot of a nightlit dolmen was? What an amateur!

139

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I recently read a book written in 1922 and refer to the built in dictionary probably every 10 pages.

[/quote]

Something came to mind a couple days ago when considering this thread and vocabulary. I believe that the literates of years or centuries past had a considerably larger vocabulary than we do now. Obviously the number of literates was infinitely smaller than today (insert high school joke here). But I haven’t been able to find anything to see if I was correct in that hypothesis.[/quote]

It’s not just vocabulary. There were layers upon layers of cultural, artistic and literary references in the old literature.

Just for fun sometime, go read The Count of Monte Cristo, unabridged version. The hardcover edition is like 1100 pages.

It is a fantastic story, but it is also full of hundreds of references that will not be obvious at all to a twenty-first-century American, but that were common knowledge to a 19th century European. References not only to the pop culture (opera, ballet, theater) of the day, but to classical literature: Dante, Homer, Ovid, Vergil, St Augustine… while being as relevant to the political “current events” of the moment as a Tom Clancy novel.

What strikes me about the Count is that it was not considered “highbrow” fiction by any means. It was written for the average educated Frenchman at the time.

Fast forward a hundred seventy years. Compare popular fiction today to anything written pre-American Civil War in any country.

Literature today has gotten dumber.

Because we have.

EDIT: momentarily forgot what century it currently is. This happens from time to time.

140

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Just for fun sometime, go read The Count of Monte Cristo, unabridged version. The hardcover edition is like 1100 pages.

It is a fantastic story, but it is also full of hundreds of references that will not be obvious at all to a twenty-first-century American, but that were common knowledge to a 19th century European. References not only to the pop culture (opera, ballet, theater) of the day, but to classical literature: Dante, Homer, Ovid, Vergil, St Augustine… while being as relevant to the political “current events” of the moment as a Tom Clancy novel.

What strikes me about the Count is that it was not considered “highbrow” fiction by any means. It was written for the average educated Frenchman at the time.

Fast forward a hundred seventy years. Compare popular fiction today to anything written pre-American Civil War in any country.

Literature today has gotten dumber.

Because we have.

EDIT: momentarily forgot what century it currently is. This happens from time to time. [/quote]

That’s my all-time favourite book.