4 ms·

> in reality we should be allocating more education resources to weaker students in society and handing them the most credit Why? Turning good engineers into g

> in reality we should be allocating more education resources to weaker students in society and handing them the most credit Why? Turning good engineers into great engineers is arguably a much more marginally efficient use of social resources than turning average telephone sanitisers, estate agents or PR managers into good or even great ones. The engineers (or software architects, biotech researchers, Wall Street quants etc) are the ones that create innovations and companies that build on them - whereas the marginal improvement of spending the same money on weaker students is - at the very best - them not ending up in jail or doing a job well that should have been automated in the first place.

VLM 11y ago
Which works better depends on if you're in a class based authoritarian society or a democracy. Clearly we're headed back to the middle ages as fast as we can, in general, at least economically. Is it better to pretend otherwise hoping we'll change direction or at least the lies will pacify the general public, or knowingly step on the gas to get the suffering related to the transition over as quickly as possible or hoping the general public will rise up?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Suppose we have a democracy, or perhaps a freedom preserving autocracy of some sort (e.g. Singapore). How does it benefit anyone to turn a good street sweeper into a great one who vaguely half remembers Shakespeare? Could you lay out the mechanics in concrete terms? (I.e., no vague platitudes like "a knowledge citizenry is necessary in a democracy", but instead concrete steps like "vague memory of hating shakespeare => recognizing that bushbama is lying with higher probability => voting better". Critical thinking rather than slogans.)
  - Retra 11y ago
    If you don't see the relevance in understanding Shakespeare for making decisions in your life, then you weren't properly taught Shakespeare.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      tl;dr; no argument but have a platitude.
      - Practicality 11y ago
        His one sentence was too long to read?
    - SamReidHughes 11y ago
      What's the most recent decision in your life for which understanding Shakespeare was relevant? What does it mean to "understand" Shakespeare, by the way? (If I read or watch the plays, is that sufficient? Or is there more to it than that?)
      - Retra 11y ago
        If you understand it (that is, study its writer's themes, methodologies, culture, etc..) you generalize the information and integrate it with your decision-making abilities. Your question is a bit like asking "When's the last time eating ham was relevant to a decision I've made." You can't trace the source of relevance through those kinds of generalizations. You can only know your own personal history: that you've previously integrated the information. It's the same way you can't look at someone and say "your decisions don't directly involve ham. Maybe you shouldn't eat ham anymore." Shakespeare isn't strictly necessary for this, but there is value to be gained from studying literature, and Shakespeare is just the most accessible and popular academic literature. Addendum: For what it's worth, I use my experiences studying shakespeare quite frequently, particularly when analyzing things like tragedy, taboo, or social conflict like drugs and politics. If there were some better way to deliver that experience, I would support it as well.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        Lets approach this via another tack, since you seem to want to drop more platitudes. Suppose you have two humans - one who integrated shakespeare, one who didn't. (Or make it two samples of humans to reduce statistical noise, if you prefer.) Beyond quizzing them on lines from plays, what measurement can you make to determine which human/group of humans "integrated" and "generalized" shakespeare and which didn't? If no such measurement exists, I'd assert that rather than shakespeare, we need invisible dragons to breath the fire of knowledge. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

VLM 11y ago

Which works better depends on if you're in a class based authoritarian society or a democracy. Clearly we're headed back to the middle ages as fast as we can, in general, at least economically. Is it better to pretend otherwise hoping we'll change direction or at least the lies will pacify the general public, or knowingly step on the gas to get the suffering related to the transition over as quickly as possible or hoping the general public will rise up?

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Suppose we have a democracy, or perhaps a freedom preserving autocracy of some sort (e.g. Singapore). How does it benefit anyone to turn a good street sweeper into a great one who vaguely half remembers Shakespeare? Could you lay out the mechanics in concrete terms? (I.e., no vague platitudes like "a knowledge citizenry is necessary in a democracy", but instead concrete steps like "vague memory of hating shakespeare => recognizing that bushbama is lying with higher probability => voting better". Critical thinking rather than slogans.)
- Retra 11y ago
  If you don't see the relevance in understanding Shakespeare for making decisions in your life, then you weren't properly taught Shakespeare.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    tl;dr; no argument but have a platitude.
    - Practicality 11y ago
      His one sentence was too long to read?
  - SamReidHughes 11y ago
    What's the most recent decision in your life for which understanding Shakespeare was relevant? What does it mean to "understand" Shakespeare, by the way? (If I read or watch the plays, is that sufficient? Or is there more to it than that?)
    - Retra 11y ago
      If you understand it (that is, study its writer's themes, methodologies, culture, etc..) you generalize the information and integrate it with your decision-making abilities. Your question is a bit like asking "When's the last time eating ham was relevant to a decision I've made." You can't trace the source of relevance through those kinds of generalizations. You can only know your own personal history: that you've previously integrated the information. It's the same way you can't look at someone and say "your decisions don't directly involve ham. Maybe you shouldn't eat ham anymore." Shakespeare isn't strictly necessary for this, but there is value to be gained from studying literature, and Shakespeare is just the most accessible and popular academic literature. Addendum: For what it's worth, I use my experiences studying shakespeare quite frequently, particularly when analyzing things like tragedy, taboo, or social conflict like drugs and politics. If there were some better way to deliver that experience, I would support it as well.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        Lets approach this via another tack, since you seem to want to drop more platitudes. Suppose you have two humans - one who integrated shakespeare, one who didn't. (Or make it two samples of humans to reduce statistical noise, if you prefer.) Beyond quizzing them on lines from plays, what measurement can you make to determine which human/group of humans "integrated" and "generalized" shakespeare and which didn't? If no such measurement exists, I'd assert that rather than shakespeare, we need invisible dragons to breath the fire of knowledge. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm