This article in the NY Times points out that Geography is also suffering from the “Social Studies Syndrome.” Nobody knows nothing.
A popular video on YouTube shows Kellie Pickler, the adorable platinum blonde from “American Idol,” appearing on the Fox game show “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?” during celebrity week. Selected from a third-grade geography curriculum, the $25,000 question asked: “Budapest is the capital of what European country?”
Ms. Pickler threw up both hands and looked at the large blackboard perplexed. “I thought Europe was a country,” she said.
Tags: American Idol, education, geography
“Socialist Studies” would be a more accurate descriptor for the dreck that is taught to our kids in public schools instead of real history and geography.
I’m with you, Professor LaRoche. I mean, if you are going to teach political prejudice and such, at least do so on top of a basis of knowledge. That makes sense—even if you are trying to indoctrinate.
I keep coming back to Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” when the Controller made the comment about teaching (quoting Henry Ford, whom they call “Our Ford”): “History…is bunk.”
Santayana wept.
But it does keep the masses under control, doesn’t it?
In light of that other brilliant blonde, Ms. South Carolina, who blathered on the nonsensical drivel about maps, or South Africa, or whatever is was, and Ms. Pickler, I’m so happy to be a brunette! We may not necessarily have more fun but we’ve got brains!
Seriously though, I found this interesting:
“Ms. Jacoby also blames religious fundamentalism’s antipathy toward science, as she grieves over surveys that show that nearly two-thirds of Americans want creationism to be taught along with evolution.”
If she had stopped at making the observation that there is antipathy toward knowledge and intellectualism within the church, I would agree.
However, as she applied her own personal philosophy as the criteria in determining a lack of intellectualism (because Americans wants creationism taught as well as evolution) she kills the argument.
I can attest that there is indeed an anti-intellectual strain within the modern church because a touchy-feely good approach toward God is easier to grasp and fills the pews more than rigorous study of theology, eschatology and Greek. Unfortunately a user-friendly church is equivalent to the public education system watering down curricula to reach the masses and make all learning, easy.
Honestly, Dana, I do not believe that most Americans truly want “creationism” to be taught in school. And I write that as religious person who knows very well that evolution has occurred and is ongoing.
There isn’t much to teach, since Creationism is faith based, and highly personal. And different religious sects, even within Christianity, have different views on the subject: compare a Mormon to a Roman Catholic on this subject.
My mother was trying to tell me that she wanted Creationism to be taught in schools, and I asked her what she felt should be taught. Didn’t take long. So I asked her how she would feel if we taught Catholic doctrine in the schools. Mormon doctrine? Southern Baptist.
She became annoyed, but saw my point.
I think what American respond to is the perception of “fair play.” For good or for ill, many “pro-evolutionists” in the public eye are highly dismissive of (and often insulting toward) issues of faith. Look at Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and so forth. They use the concept of evolution as a “proof” that there is no Creator, and build no bridges on this subject.
I think that people are reacting to Dawkins’ sneers as much as anything else.
I recommend Francis Collins’ book.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/198/story_19848_1.html
If you haven’t read his book, it is darned good. He is both religious and an excellent scientist, and sees the deep and troubling schisms on this subject.
As far as American anti-intellectualism, I am far more worried about the lack of basic knowledge and Western history than the finer points of evolution!
Eric Blair, you miss my point. Its not about the validity of creationism or evolution, which are moot points in this converstaion, nor about teaching creationism in school alongside evolution or not doing so, but its about the author using her own personal philosophical beliefs as a measuring stick. She equates evolutionsim with intellectualism and creastionism as anti-intellectual or less intelligent or learned. Her illustration re the two boobs discussing Pearl Harbor as the start of the Vietnam War illustrate her point. The comment re fundies, doesn’t.
This is an intellectually dishonest position on her part.
Sorry if I overstepped, Dana.
But on the topic you describe, since I teach in a university setting, I can assure you that teachers/professors routinely inject their own partisanship and philosophical prejudices.
We recently had a presidential candidate on campus. Half my freshmen elected to skip class that day (my guess is that maybe 10% of those missing actually went to the rally). The students who were present assumed that everyone was on the other side of the political aisle.
I had to clamp down hard on that. I teach science, not politics. And even in politics, because of the asymmetry of power, I believe that instructors have a responsibility to stay out of partisanship. I’m supposed to be *everyone’s* professor.
I’m very careful when I discuss both evolution and genetic engineering to make it clear that the debate here is about ALL of society, and everyone’s vote counts the same. So I say that it is, for example, perfectly okay with me to object to genetic engineering of crops because you are philosophically opposed. What I discourage with a heavy hand is being dishonest about what others believe—i.e., not lying about possible dangers of genetic engineering (the ever popular “Frankenfood” meme).
It’s probably true that, in the liberal arts, there is much more wiggle room. But I am suspicious, given my experiences in the Ivory Tower.
Again, sorry for hijacking your point.
No need to apologize. I just don’t like being misunderstood!
Ms. Jacoby’s measuring rod was just too subjective for my liking.
I think the creationism teaching debate is really a reaction to the dismissing of all religious faith in universities. It is defensive. I would not write a letter for a medical school applicant who did not believe in evolution but I don’t care what the average bank manager believes. I do think that science education in the country is abysmal and that is some of the justification for the evolution side in the debate. Still, it could be done with more respect.
Dr. K., I honestly think that the issue of “perceived fairness” runs this debate. This is something that HRC should think about if she goes all negative. BO is nearly the perfect political victim…and all it will do is drive voters to him, and aware from HRC.