241–250 of 268 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be very surprised if there were zero atheists that were anti-abortion.
>I'd be very surprised if there were zero atheists that were anti-abortion. Well, sure, there were _some_, eg both Hitler and Stalin have delegalised abortion in their countries. But I'm not sure if that's the kind of moral oracle that todays christian fundamentalists would like to remember.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Facts are, well, facts. This is funny coming from somebody who said "The fact that university students will riot when someone their puppeteers do not agree with comes to give a presentation at their school" is funny. The number of disinvitations is in the tens per year , out of thousands of degree granting institutions and roughly zero riots. Oh nooooo. Those indoctrinated college students. You are the one making s…
No, I am not. This is real. The other thing that happens is brutally simple to understand: They just don't hold events featuring people with contrasting opinions. That's how you achieve "disinvitations is in the tens per year". A parallel example having nothing to do with universities: The easiest way for a company to improve their numbers is to fire thousands of people. Their earnings per share metric will improve a…
You are.
"The students will riot but I cannot point to meaningful numbers of examples but trust me it's totally a liberal conspiracy" is not a focus on factual discourse.
Conservatives speak at universities all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I am not. This is real. The other thing that happens is brutally simple to understand: They just don't hold events featuring people with contrasting opinions. That's how you achieve "disinvitations is in the tens per year". A parallel example having nothing to do with universities: The easiest way for a company to improve their numbers is to fire thousands of people. Their earnings per share metric will improve a…
> I am not making shit up. You are. "The students will riot but I cannot point to meaningful numbers of examples but trust me it's totally a liberal conspiracy" is not a focus on factual discourse. Conservatives speak at universities all the time.
I'm sorry, why do you think you can make up shit I did not say and then use it in support of your claim?
> Conservatives speak at universities all the time.
I am not a Republican (Conservative) or Democrat (Liberal). I try very hard to observe reality from as neutral a perch as possible. I don't always succeed. Most topics of any importance cannot be reduced to single variables, which means they are nearly impossible to treat fairly in the context of these types of discussions. This is particularly true when some choose to resort to attacks rather than seeking to have a respectful conversation and conversation where everyone might learn something.
Saying that our universities are in the grips of leftist ideology isn't making shit up. It's verifiable reality. Has been so for a very long time. The same can be said of our mass media.
You might not like these objective observations. That does not mean they are not real. That also does not mean they are causing harm.
Simple rule: Universities must not identify with political parties, create ideological monocultures and promote/teach ideological extremes.
When this rule is violated, they become centers of hatred and indoctrination. That applies to ANY SIDE. Almost anyone familiar with US universities can rattle-off schools who lean left and right, and even rate them as hard-left and hard-right.
Either universities are centers for ideological warfare, we accept that and hope that balance is somehow magically produced by having equal portions of the population influenced by each side, or we do our best to reform systems in order to create balance.
I think graduating mentally and culturally balanced adults is vitally important. That is not what we do today. The system is solidly tilted in one direction.
One of the most interesting interviews out there on aspects of this subject is with Nial Ferguson, Historian, Oxford and Stanford lecturer (and more):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKkNIOkGtnQ
May I remind of you what President Barack Obama said when referring to the incident involving Condoleezza Rice:
"I don't think it's a secret that I disagree with many of the policies of Dr. Rice and the previous administration. But the notion that this community or this country would be better served by not hearing a former secretary of state or not hearing what she had to say — I believe that's misguided," Obama said. "I don't think that's how democracy works best, when we're not even willing to listen to each other."
"If you disagree with somebody, bring them in and ask them tough questions. Hold their feet to the fire, make them defend their positions. ... Don't be scared to take somebody on. Don't feel like you got to shut your ears off because you're too fragile and somebody might offend your sensibilities. Go at them if they're not making any sense."
He didn't say that because we don't have this problem at US universities. We do. It's very serious. And it was brave of him to take that position and highlight this is not good for society.
Without much effort you can find dozens of articles, from outfits like CNN, Washington Post, State Bar Associations and more discussing the problem in very real terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not talking about competitiveness. I am talking about wasting a year with non-degree coursework and saddling students with tens of thousands of dollars of debt because of it. Coursework that no employer cares about one bit. Coursework that should be covered in high school, preparing young adults for the world --even if they don't go to college. Are we sitting here pretending that all is well with our system of e…
> I am talking about wasting a year with non-degree coursework and saddling students with tens of thousands of dollars of debt because of it. I did my post-doc at EPFL, a 3 year university but almost all the CS students would stay in for at least 4 years (and get a 1 year masters). I took 5 years myself to do undergrad in the states, I don't think that one year was a deal breaker either way. > Coursework that should…
That's not true. There's a very large gap between graduating 18 year old's who are only good for box-stacking, making coffee or going to college (with a lot of help in all cases) and actually graduating people who can deliver value to an employer and is culturally ready for society.
Take critical thinking as an easy example. Or logic, philosophy, art, music, trades and other important areas that would benefit society if exposed during the K-12 period.
I say this both as a parent and an employer.
The average high school graduate is useless to me, in almost any capacity.
The average college graduate isn't very far from that. This isn't new, it has been discussed here on HN many times in the past. Small to medium companies don't have the time or resources to engage in education after education. This is where this concept of wasting a year of a student's time with coursework nobody cares about is very relevant.
As for my own kids, I made sure to heavily supplement their US high school education with learning that made them valuable upon graduation. A simple result from this was landing knowledge-based jobs making more than $35/hr right out of high school, when their peers where struggling with minimum wage work almost throughout their university experience.
As a result of that, my oldest had a solid financial footing when he was done with university. All of this was due to education prior to college, in this case, driven my my efforts and those of my wife. Schools could do this. It isn't difficult. And it sure isn't a matter of money, not today.
This kind of thing would materially change society and outcomes at all levels. It would increase opportunity at all layers of the population. There is no inherent reason for which lower income households could not have their children receive a solid, useful and marketable education in high school. We just suck at doing it.
My personal experience, from many decades ago and in systems of education outside and inside the US, was to walk away from high school with lots of marketable skills. I had no problems at all delivering value to any employers. I did not accumulate any student debt in university in the US because I had solid employment the entire time and was paid very well as I built on the foundation I got in high school.
Simple example, I had two years of technical drafting. One of my first jobs was doing exactly that. And then AutoCAD came out. Because I had a position drafting with pencil and paper I was given the opportunity to learn ACAD and a very nice raise. Things evolved from there. And, no I did not attend a trade school. We just had more opportunities to learn things in school than kids have today.
High schools don't have to become full-blown university level for this to become a reality. Furthermore, we tend to make the assumption that everyone is, or should be, college-bound. That's a mistake. Not everyone needs to waste time with Calculus, Physics and Chemistry. I say "waste time" because these topic areas are utterly without value for lots of professions. One could easily teach a "general science education" course and move on. One of my very favorite talks on the subject of fitting education to the student is by Sir Ken Robinson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY
This is important...and we almost completely ignore it and force every child into the same mold. At some level one could say this is abusive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I interpreted which I interpret as assumption Right. Interpretation, layered upon interpretation, layered upon assumptions. That's why people can't have conversations. They hear what they want and read what they want into what others are saying. My problem isn't at all with a class about XYZ. It's about being FORCED to take a class that has nothing whatsoever to do with the field of study. It's also about wasting p…
> Right. Interpretation, layered upon interpretation, layered upon assumptions. > That's why people can't have conversations. That's the only way to have conversations. It's impossible to know the other's mind, or to understand everything that is meant when something is said, you have have to make assumptions. When it seems those assumptions are wrong, you ask for clarification, as I did. That's how to actually have…
Ask. Don't attack.
> So, should they not take English classes either
Not at the university level. See next answer.
> Do you think the state of the average high school graduate is sufficient in English
It's horrible. This is precisely the kind of failure I am referring to.
Why are we assuming that everyone graduating high school must go to college? That is clearly no the case, by a massive margin. Not everyone should or wants to.
OK, from that basis, one where the majority of high school students do not move on to college: What should our high school education look like? What results should it deliver?
Well, they should have a solid commend of their own language, both spoken and written. Is that too much to ask? There should not be any need for an 18 year old to take English classes at the university level for any major that isn't directly in of this. English and Literature majors? Sure. Law? Not a lawyer, maybe. STEM? C'mon.
Another way to look at it is that we are causing serious issues of inequality and reduced opportunity because our high school education is so inadequate that the only way to become useful is to take another year of coursework at the college level. That, again, is a sign of failure. And the consequences to the non-college bound population are severe.
> Says you, completely anecdotally, without much to back it up rather than your own singular experience
Not sure what you are talking about. A bachelors in Europe takes three years and focuses on degree-related work. It is assumed that general education is what you got in high school. This isn't anecdotal or a singular experience, google it. Are there universities where it takes longer? Maybe, I haven't conducted a full survey. I just know that the idea is to graduate young adults from high school with a solid education and not have to engage in "repair work" at the university level if at all possible.
> I have a bunch of friends from High School that never went to college. They are productive members of society
Yeah? What do they do? Only list occupations they learned in high school or were able to walk into because they got a useful amount of training in that domain during high school.
> so quick to denigrate them
Our culture seems to now have the option to interpret the truth as denigration. Not a way to make things better at all.
> The first step would be to actually look at the data and figure out what are the problems and what are the strengths. If you're unwilling or unable to see any strengths, perhaps you should look at the problem closer.
You don't fix strengths. You fix failures. Go research college dropout rates and think of what happened in high school that did not allow so many students to excel in college.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am not making shit up. You are. "The students will riot but I cannot point to meaningful numbers of examples but trust me it's totally a liberal conspiracy" is not a focus on factual discourse. Conservatives speak at universities all the time.
> "The students will riot but I cannot point to meaningful numbers of examples but trust me it's totally a liberal conspiracy" is not a focus on factual discourse. I'm sorry, why do you think you can make up shit I did not say and then use it in support of your claim? > Conservatives speak at universities all the time. I am not a Republican (Conservative) or Democrat (Liberal). I try very hard to observe reality from…
Frankly, all I can do is laugh.
The data trying to argue that there is some threat to intellectual diversity at universities is laughable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Right. Interpretation, layered upon interpretation, layered upon assumptions. > That's why people can't have conversations. That's the only way to have conversations. It's impossible to know the other's mind, or to understand everything that is meant when something is said, you have have to make assumptions. When it seems those assumptions are wrong, you ask for clarification, as I did. That's how to actually have…
> It's impossible to know the other's mind Ask. Don't attack. > So, should they not take English classes either Not at the university level. See next answer. > Do you think the state of the average high school graduate is sufficient in English It's horrible. This is precisely the kind of failure I am referring to. Why are we assuming that everyone graduating high school must go to college? That is clearly no the case…
> Ask. Don't attack.
I did. I said I made assumptions, and asked you to clarify.
> Our culture seems to now have the option to interpret the truth as denigration. Not a way to make things better at all.
Your words were "We graduate ignorant young adults who are barely good enough to stack boxes at a warehouse or make coffee." Of course you're going to just say "the truth hurts" when you're called on that and prevented with someone else's experience that contradicts that. Like every other point you make you're just pulling it out of the air and not supporting it by any means.
> Not sure what you are talking about. A bachelors in Europe takes three years and focuses on degree-related work.
So? Do people that graduate there have better or worse outcomes and careers when presented with similar situations? Assuming the degrees are equivalent from the U.S. to Europe is the same as assuming every degree from every college in the U.S. is equivalent, or every High School graduates students with equivalent ability.
Not only do I think that's completely unsupported in anything you've presented, I think it's very unlikely to be true.
> You don't fix strengths. You fix failures.
Do you think it's impossible to accidentally reduce or eliminate a strength on accident? I didn't think I was being obtuse, but I'll spell it out again: What if the thing you think is a weakness is actually a strength in other ways that you aren't considering, and by changing it you may make things worse rather than better? Europe is not the U.S. What works there may not work the same here, as much as you seem to think you can just plug it into place. Maybe it would though. Have you even considered these aspects, or is your actual interest so shallow that you're only interested in saying that it would be better and ignoring any of the deeper aspects of what you're proposing?
All that's really happening here is you making blanket assertions, me questioning them and asking for the bare minimum of actual thought and effort to support the in some evidenced way, and you making more assertions without evidence to try to support yourself. If you really truly believe what you're saying, don't you owe it to yourself to actually put a little effort into learning the actual details what you so vehemently assert? The questions I have, which you've been plainly unable to answer with any real data (or anything other than repeating yourself, really), are not hard, in my opinion. There what anyone that actually wanted a change and cared about the outcome would want to know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Monitoring an active riot seems pretty much what I’d expect the FBI to do. What - if any - is the difference between a riot and a protest?
In the US, a protest is organized, but not violent and doesn’t disturb the peace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am talking about wasting a year with non-degree coursework and saddling students with tens of thousands of dollars of debt because of it. I did my post-doc at EPFL, a 3 year university but almost all the CS students would stay in for at least 4 years (and get a 1 year masters). I took 5 years myself to do undergrad in the states, I don't think that one year was a deal breaker either way. > Coursework that should…
> High schools can't really do that, unless they are structured more like universities. That's not true. There's a very large gap between graduating 18 year old's who are only good for box-stacking, making coffee or going to college (with a lot of help in all cases) and actually graduating people who can deliver value to an employer and is culturally ready for society. Take critical thinking as an easy example. Or lo…
Perhaps you are advocating the dual trade/university tracks that German (and Swiss) schools promote? The problem is putting students into either or bucket after middle school.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If guns will not protect you, why did Stalin, Hitler and Castro go to such lengths of seizing privately owned firearms? Yeah: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument * https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/apr/08/viral-imag... Chenoweth et al did a study of over 600 movements since 1900, and found those that used violence/force succeeded about 25% of the time, and those that did not succeeded…
Can this be a case of Simpson’s paradox? A movement will not resort to violence if there are non-violent ways for it to meet their goals. Violence is used in desperation so it would make sense that movements on track to not succeed would resort to it.
According to the research cited in the book, the more violence the movement does, the more its chances drop.
If there is a movement where the 'core' is non-violent, but there are some 'adjacent' groups that use it (even against the wishes of the core), the the odds of success drop.
The reasoning seems to be that most movements start small, and the main way to success is to get more and more people on your side (or at least not against you). The moment any kind of violence starts occurring you start turning people off.