I encouraged , challenging the validity of what was written in the Social Studies text books, by using research resourses on the internet. Depending on the subject, I don't see why the college students would be on-line surfing while an instructor is teaching? Typing notes? If I'm teaching math, the only reason to be on a computer is perhaps (slim chance) using a calculator which doesn't require being on the internet. I don't understand their (teachers) problem. These are College students, not kindergarteners.

IMHO, I enjoy curious students, challenging means that they are interested enough in what is being taught to dig deeper.

One of our kid's friends enrolled in college to study journalizm. She quit because she was muzzled and given laughable asignments not fit for college level, and a waste of her hard earned dollars. The kid is an excellent writer, born to write if ya know what I mean. Too bad challenging and curriousity is a threat.

I had an instructor who quoted word for word , case studies from a textbook and said they were her own experiences. Did I challenge, sortof, by buying the textbook, dispaying it on my desk. Didn't have to say a word, it was worth only receiving 75 or 78 percent on that piece of paper (certificate) LOL
I learned more later, by reading the book

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I saw Jeffrey Cole on C/SPAN this AM talking about the internet and demographic trends. He said that in some college classrooms, Internet connections had been placed at each student desk. Teachers found that they weren't helpful because some kids did other things on line than schoolwork. But also some teachers were upset because kids were checking out the validity of what they were being taught at the same time it was being taught and challenging the teachers in class. The teachers then received the option of disabling the connections during their classes.

They might be awakening to the FACT that higher education in America is a sham and the degrees they're earning are worthless! Many college professor aren't worthy of the title!

Not only in America, Canada's the same way.

I found and interesting read in our 1920 encyclopedia, published in London England

"EDUCATION and UTILITY"

" Universities and secondary schools have been dominated by the concept of what is called a liberal education, by which is meant an education suitable for a free man: an education that will make him as nearly as possible a perfect human being as such, apart from any consideration of work or vocation. Thus one of the essential qualities of a liberal education is freedom from any taint of the useful in the ordinary meaning of that term. The pupil shall develop fully and freely all his qualities as a human being, irrespective of any use to which these qualities may be put. Some have gone the length of advocating the cult of the useless as something in itself desirable, but the more usual attitude is that the truly educated man is one who has been trained in subjects that are not required in earning a living, and that are not to be put to any use leading to material advantage.

Along with the more or less avowed cult of the useless, ther grew up a theory that did something to salve the conscience of practical English people. It was admitted that, as artisans and other humble folk had to be specifically prepared for the particular line of work that was to be their portion, so it was desirable that even those who would be called upon to sit in the seats of the mighty should get some sort of training that would have the direct result of fitting them to discharge their duties efficiently. Princes have quite a specific training, and certain other high dignitaries have an equally satisfactory preparation for their life work. The lure of the liberal arts was, however, very strong, and the fortunate free men of the world were willing that the education of their children should b marked off from that of the unfree and artisan class.

A justification of this purely general and unspecific training was found in the theory that the subject studied did not in itself matter; that the training acquired in the process of mastering it did. The mind could be trained apart altogether from the nature of the material upon which it was exercised. The student of classics and mathematics learned not only to be a mathematician and a classical scholar, but to be a well-trained man in general. His mind was trained as mind, and was ready to be applied to any subject.

This is the much debated doctrine of formal training, according to which a man who has been trained in any subject can carry over the results of that training to any other subject; so that, for example, a man who has been trained in physics and mathematics may at once turn his training to account in governing a district in India. "

This was written 85 years ago . I thought "cult of the useless" was fitting for this thread ;-)

Happy New Year everyone.

Bobby

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

They might be awakening to the FACT that higher education in America is a sham and the degrees they're earning are worthless! Many college professor aren't worthy of the title!