Comments on: These college kids like knowledge!

By: Spinoza

Spinoza — Tue, 20 May 2008 20:09:00 +0000

science classes can give you lots of information but still leave you misunderstanding the nature of science.

I would argue that both are important…

By: Ree

Ree — Tue, 20 May 2008 16:09:42 +0000

“but cannot tolerate the attitude expressed by Bloom and others about the superiority of their generation and past generations in comparison to new generations”

The thesis of the book is much more than Paul Lynde singing “Why can’t they be like we were–perfect in every way? What’s the matter with kids today?” He traces the whole trajectory of the fall of liberal thinking (in the true sense of the word) and, if anything, he sees the last couple of generations as victims rather than perpetrators. In fact, he puts a lot of blame on his own generation for the problem.

Report comment to moderator

By: Pauline

Pauline — Tue, 20 May 2008 14:03:00 +0000

#24
Spinoza,
I took college-level math and science courses in high school, which fulfilled my graduation requirement for college. For all practical purposes I followed a liberal-arts-only curriculum once I graduated from high school.

Arguably the most educational science class I took was Physical Science in ninth grade. I did not learn a great deal more about the physical properties of various elements and compounds than I had already known, but immeasurably more about the scientific method.

I had known scientists could take a sample of something (such as my doctor taking a blood sample), run it through some machine, and give results about its contents. But I’d never given any thought to how the machine “knew” what was in there.

That Physical Science class was a real eye-opener as to what scientists can know and how they learn it. Our final project was to identify an “unknown” (to us) substance, using only our basic tools such as thermometer, water, bunsen burner, various flasks and tubes – and our knowledge of the physical properties of the various substances we had examined over the course of the year.

Subsequent science courses taught me lots of information about living organisms, the laws of motion, and the basic makeup of things at an atomic and subatomic level. But no other class came close to teaching me as much about the nature of scientific study, what we can know and how we know it.

I don’t know how many high schools have such a course as a graduation requirement as mine did. I think they all should. But without that foundational understanding of how science works (and I doubt most college science courses bother with that foundational part, since students should have learned it in high school), science classes can give you lots of information but still leave you misunderstanding the nature of science.

Report comment to moderator

By: Spinoza

Spinoza — Mon, 19 May 2008 21:45:32 +0000

p.s. I imagine that HSK will be learning a lot of geology, astronomy, biology, math, etc., in Purgatory…

Report comment to moderator

By: Spinoza

Spinoza — Mon, 19 May 2008 21:43:30 +0000

#23 Going to a liberal arts college is not the same as have a liberal-arts-only curriculum. Some “liberal arts” colleges (e.g., Swarthmore) have excellent science departments.

Taking science courses or not doesn’t change someone’s basic outlook.

That’s sometimes true, but not always (it radically changed mine).

I would interpret your position as favoring more choice and less requirement in general electives. The up side of this, of course, is that you may get more student enthusiasm (good!). The down side, however, is that students will often select a lopsided education with no exposure to things they have no experience in (like science).

The ideal college curriculum seeks to strike a balance between student choice (usually this is the major) and basic literacy in all subjects (general electives in mandated categories).

The St. John’s pro-choice view – if carried to extremes – would allow K-12 students to never ever take a math or science course (or a history or literature course, for that matter) if it didn’t suit them. Society would be the poorer.

Report comment to moderator

By: Pauline

Pauline — Mon, 19 May 2008 21:34:05 +0000

#22
Spinoza,
I went to a liberal arts college but they still required everyone to take some math and science. I think that’s fairly typical – same as students who major in math and science are required to take a few humanities courses.

Taking science courses or not doesn’t change someone’s basic outlook. I took only the minimum requirements because I wasn’t interested in further academic study in science, but I enjoy learning about it and am open to having my mind changed by the evidence. That would have been the case even if I hadn’t taken a single college-level science course. And someone (I’m not speaking of HSK or anyone in particular) who is not interested is not going to be changed by being forced to take such classes.

If you were an employer considering the qualifications of various candidates, you could choose to hire only those with a B.S. (or M.S.). But to many employers a B.A. is plenty adequate for their needs, so there’s plenty demand for colleges to produce graduates with those degrees.

Report comment to moderator

By: Spinoza

Spinoza — Mon, 19 May 2008 20:59:15 +0000

p.s. There is no better example of the deficiency of a liberal-arts-only education than HSK, whose scientific illiteracy manages to fatally destroy any potential he might otherwise have had as a WOW contributor of news editorials.

Report comment to moderator

By: Spinoza

Spinoza — Mon, 19 May 2008 16:52:59 +0000

#6 Have read it before, Paula – sounds like a lot of fun actually! But it is a luxury for most people to spend four years in liberal studies – this is more of a department than a whole college – and it is not a good model for college, generally, as implied by HSK in saying this college that is “getting it right”. The idea that colleges should basically scrap math, science, and vocational studies to “get it right” is completely lamebrained, unless of course you want an entire society of lawyers, MBA’s and Jesuits, etc.!

Report comment to moderator

By: Robert M

Robert M — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:13:01 +0000

St. John’s has a sister school (exact same structure, etc just a different location) in Sante Fe, New Mexico. It was one of three schools that I visited and I was quite enamored. To put it bluntly, I didn’t attend because I was intimidated — you don’t BS your way through those classes, period (not that I advocate BS, but I’m prone to laziness…).

Anyways, the numbers that I read (7 years ago) regarding their graduates: something like 90% ended up in graduate school immediately after graduating (and a dis-apportionately high percentage to their school of choice). Basically, if you passed muster at St. John’s (Annapolis or Sante Fe) you didn’t have issues getting accepted into Master/PhD programs or getting a job.

Report comment to moderator

By: Sawgunner

Sawgunner — Sun, 18 May 2008 20:19:28 +0000

#14 Galadriel: Its been many years since I’ve heard anyone use the MRS degree rationale. Thats a lotta gals at Bible colleges, no doubt. I dont know the percent breakdown, but probably the lion’s share of these St John’ alumni will be teachers in public schools. No one goes into teaching for the paycheck it gives (the pension benefits? A different matter entirely) and teachers’ wives normally have to hold down a paying job as well.

Most of the folks I know who whizzed thru schools like St John’s wound up as lawyers or else they had a vocational epiphany and became hardened cynics with MBAs. The important thing is that all education should equip students with sound logic and critical thinking skills. I had to chuckle when UTSan Antonio began offering critical thinking courses for pre-laws.
Then I began wondering if perhaps all undergraduates and not just those destined for the bar or bench need to have well-developed critical thinking ability?

Report comment to moderator