4 ms·

I disagree in the sense that this will end up putting an overemphasis on contemporary work, and not enough on classic works. Think about how often cirriculum n

I disagree in the sense that this will end up putting an overemphasis on contemporary work, and not enough on classic works. Think about how often cirriculum never gets to the end of, when such seminal and formative works such as Plato and Aristotle are fit into the last weeks you will inevietably gloss over them. We already make Gods out of our contemporary world view at the expense of downplaying the brilliance of past thinkers. I dont think we need to fan this flame. We will end up with an aesthetic that is so devoid of the basics that it barely comprehends itself, and if ever hits a dry spell will never be able to recreate its former greatness

karthikb 8y ago
Specifically with history, contemporary topics being skipped over is not only common but an incredible disservice to humanity. Many schools spend months on Columbus but only 1-2 weeks on the entire post Cold War era. Which one is more important for future voters to understand?
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > Specifically with history, contemporary topics being skipped over is not only common but an incredible disservice to humanity. Many schools spend months on Columbus but only 1-2 weeks on the entire post Cold War era. Which one is more important for future voters to understand? Contemporary events are often thought to be outside the scope of "history": History depends on perspective: We don't know the consequences and thus the significance of many events; what will happen with climate change? The consequences of the Iraq War and 9/11? And also we are emotionally lost in the trees and can't see the forest, so to speak. Also, history depends on having lots of information, much of which isn't available for a long time (declassified info, memoirs, archives, other things later revealed, etc.). Finally, arguably history is studied so we can learn from it, not act on it. I think the topics the parent brings up are very important, but arguably they belong in another class.
woodandsteel 8y ago
No, you are misunderstanding what he is suggesting. He didn't say cover all of contemporary literature. He is saying spend a few years getting students hooked on contemporary literature, and then get them into say 19th century literature like with Dickens, and so on working backwards. And let me ask you this, do think the way literature at present is taught in elementary and secondary schools is effective in getting students involved, such that they voluntarily read high-quality works for the rest of their lives?

karthikb 8y ago

Specifically with history, contemporary topics being skipped over is not only common but an incredible disservice to humanity. Many schools spend months on Columbus but only 1-2 weeks on the entire post Cold War era. Which one is more important for future voters to understand?

forapurpose 8y ago
> Specifically with history, contemporary topics being skipped over is not only common but an incredible disservice to humanity. Many schools spend months on Columbus but only 1-2 weeks on the entire post Cold War era. Which one is more important for future voters to understand? Contemporary events are often thought to be outside the scope of "history": History depends on perspective: We don't know the consequences and thus the significance of many events; what will happen with climate change? The consequences of the Iraq War and 9/11? And also we are emotionally lost in the trees and can't see the forest, so to speak. Also, history depends on having lots of information, much of which isn't available for a long time (declassified info, memoirs, archives, other things later revealed, etc.). Finally, arguably history is studied so we can learn from it, not act on it. I think the topics the parent brings up are very important, but arguably they belong in another class.

woodandsteel 8y ago

No, you are misunderstanding what he is suggesting. He didn't say cover all of contemporary literature. He is saying spend a few years getting students hooked on contemporary literature, and then get them into say 19th century literature like with Dickens, and so on working backwards. And let me ask you this, do think the way literature at present is taught in elementary and secondary schools is effective in getting students involved, such that they voluntarily read high-quality works for the rest of their lives?