Posted on 05/18/2004 12:14:08 PM PDT by hsmomx3
The other states that "They are trained with extremist view to "lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values"" without offering any reason why he thinks it's extreme to believe in the Bible. Is PHC any different from BYU, SMU or Notre Dame in this regard? Perhaps, but it's certainly not in the "article."
The funny thing is I would guess that most of the PHC students are too well educated to make such an error in argument and logic.
All in all, it's pretty lame. It's certainly not going to to convince anyone that doesn't already hold the same preconceived notions about the world.
I said an extensive background, though (i.e., multiple college-level courses) -- you said basic. What does "basic" mean to you?
I don't buy that I, as a serious thinking person, am incapable of researching and evaluating the reality (or not) of global warming because I missed calculus and physics.
And what about my point, that extensive courses in political philosophy and history -- skipped by many in the mathematics field -- are equally valuable in the decision making process? Do you believe it should *all* be covered in depth, or that math is more significant?
PS Perhaps your reference to the three-legged stool would answer my question, you would find history/political coursework valuable on an equal par with math.
A theocracy does not imply Christianity. The Nazi philosophy was a weird, occult adaptation of theosophy, which was initially espoused by Madame Blavatsky. The Germans added their own bits and pieces, including the idea that Aryans (including Germans) were the closest to the original proto race and that all other races were either degenerate versions of Aryans, or separately-created "mud people."
This is absurd in the madrasa comparison. Madrasas teach ONLY the koran and exhort to murder and conquest.PHC teraches all the basic subjects informed by a Christian perspecive. There is no exhortation to do murder and destruction.A madrasa is o kind of "higher" education. Boys attend from a very young age.
Jusk ask a liberal.He will tell you all about it. He will know these things as soon as he hears the form of your question.
Thank you for your cowardly non-reply. You do know that calculus is taught in grade schools across both parts of Europe and much of Asia, don't you? It is clear that you have decided that your capabilities should constitute the metric by which an education should be judged (a subjective standard if there ever was one). I suggest you consider the competition to which our jobs are being drawn.
And what about my point, that extensive courses in political philosophy and history -- skipped by many in the mathematics field -- are equally valuable in the decision making process? Do you believe it should *all* be covered in depth, or that math is more significant?
My kids read Herodotus, the Iliad, the Odessey, and are about to start Plutarch. I thought Thucydides a bit much. Does that count? As for literature you might consider one of their papers. FReeper NattieShea was nine when she wrote that.
"Cowardly"? I'm happy to discuss conflicting points of view at any time, as I have been previously, but I'm sorry to see the level of discourse drop like that. Not a cool way to address a fellow FReeper. Let's keep it on a friendly level.
"It is clear that you have decided that your capabilities should constitute the metric by which an education should be judged (a subjective standard if there ever was one)."
No, to the contrary, I spoke with admiration of what you are accomplishing with your children and spoke positively of the merits of advanced education in all areas. I mentioned my daughter's own math education.
However, I have also said that it is possible for well-educated people to specialize in different areas, using a doctor as an example. Do I wish I'd been taught calculus in grade school? Sure. Does the fact that I received a significant education in several areas which did not include "higher" math mean I'm poorly educated or incapable of evaluating the issue of global warming? No.
I think you can explain a lot of the varience by looking at the MOE. All his results have fallen within the MOE. Thus, being up by 2% and down by 2% are essentially the same and expected.
How should such a statement be evaluated by one of the candidates? Why? Is being within the MOE really a dead heat? Do you think the person making the statement has any feel for statistics?
It wasn't "friendly" of you to respond to steve-b and fail to address it to me when it was obvious that you were reacting to my reply. What you did was akin to turning your back to me and speaking loudly enough for me to hear it. It was rude.
However, I have also said that it is possible for well-educated people to specialize in different areas, using a doctor as an example.
So, do you think children don't need arithmetic? Of course you do.
Algebra? Ditto.
Geometry? Probably.
Statistics? I doubt it, but you'd be dead wrong.
Calculus? Obviously you don't think so.
Differential equations?
No biology?
etc.
You see, it's a matter of where YOU draw the line for what YOU consider "adequate." That's what I meant by your standards being subjective. The problem is that you have failed to supply a rationale and criteria for that choice. From what I can tell, you draw the line for an adequate college education in mathematics at exactly the level you attained on the assumption that the same curriculum you attended that taught algebra and geometry in high school must be OK for the coming decades.
It's not.
By any objective global metric, the academic performance of American college students is awful, last I saw it was twelfth out of fourteen industrialized countries. The conclusion must be that this society has miserably failed to draw the line in the right place for what constitutes a minimally adequate college education in the twenty-first century. My evidence is that kids in many other countries take calculus IN GRADE SCHOOL. My rationale is the curriculum I designed for my kids. My proof is that they are accomplishing what I set out for them (I was using them as an example because, frankly, I don't know of any others who are front-loading an integrated program the way we are).
So, I am NOT talking about specialization, which as far as I am concerned shouldn't even start until the second year of college. I am talking about a core k-14 curriculum that includes calculus before high school so that a kid at that age can study biology, chemistry and physics at what is now the college level. I am talking about a standard curriculum that includes computational methods in college applied to those disciplines and more. They are that important.
Your education may have been fine for what you do, but a standard for college graduates in a technical world, even managers, lawyers, and politicians aspiring to leadership in the coming competitive networked global marketplace must be set higher, as it is in nearly any other industrialized country than this one.
Mostly I've been bringing the problem of allocation of scarce resources under uncertainty. Another problem arises in cases where (real case) a New York City police spokesman claims that there are 200,000 heroin addicts in the city that steal $10,000 per day each to support their habit. The question is: should this be considered a significant problem?
The question is: should this be considered a significant problem?
Yep, methinks tiz a problum wit significant figures of malordor of magnidude.
There was certainly no insult or rudeness intended on my part. I assumed we were all having an ongoing general discussion, not only with each other specifically but with everyone in this thread, and naturally assumed that you would see my post (and respond, if desired) although I neglected to include your name in the "To" list.
To call me cowardly, rude, and unfriendly as a result of this perceived slight -- particularly when I been pleasant and had positive things to say about your posts and your educational program, even while disagreeing with some of your points -- seems over the top, at minimum. Unless you would like to reset the debate at a friendlier level, I will be happy to retire from the field and leave you to debate yourself. Your call.
oh, yes... K12... Dr. William Bennett's curriculum... we used K12 for kindergarten... we had just "gotten" our five-year old through our county's FOS/ADOPT program, along with his six-month old brother... we had planned on the infant but not the five-year old... so we had thought we had a few years to get our "homeschool" together--then Jonathan came to us, and suddenly we had to get it all together before fall (or he'd have to go to public or private school)...
we thought using a complete curriculum would make a better case to our social/adoption worker to let us homeschool (my wording is awful, i know)... K12 was brand new that year... it's a wonderful curriculum (pretty extensive for kindergarten)... the only reason we didn't continue with it is that my favorite part of homeschooling is searching for and putting together resources... and we've settled on Classical Education... my friend uses K12 for her homeschool, and i find that we our often doing the same things for history...
i use The Well-Trained Mind as my guide... for history i am using Susan Wise Bauer's curriculum along with Veritas Press (Middle Ages, Reinassance and the Reformation)... our school consists of lots of history and literature... we use Saxon Math... i may purchase the K12 Science for 3rd Grade next year--that is one area i'm not enjoying putting together... we live in the central valley of California in a town named Tracy (near Stockton and Modesto)... we moved here from San Jose about five years ago...
best wishes to you, too!
ping :-)
Interesting how those folks on the list all have some sort of destructive lifestyle... Either self-destructive, or out to destroy others...
Twenty out of ~150 interns is hardly "taking over". Is the writer suggesting that nobody in Washington should be a right-wing "extremist"? How intolerant.
Besides, what is so "extremist" about those kids? The writer cites literal Biblical interpretation, and we're all supposed to turn in our graves? Who cares if they believe in Creation? It's supposed to be a free country...
As a bona-fide nerd, I gotta part ways with ya on this one, Carry... The way I feel about it is, nobody in politics is worth the paper they're printed on. Let 'em wallow in their ignorance. Why waste good differentiation on a politician? Let the scientists prove themselves to the people without some deadbeat of a middle-man/woman.
Math and the pure science (by which I mean physics, of course) are becoming muddied with mediocrity. Meaningful education in the above should be spent on those who deserve it, i.e. those who are actually going to go out and do something useful in life...
Yes, I am weary and jaded with politicians. I have a great deal of scorn for their kind...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.