Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At the very least, a good education should give the person the ability to evaluate a byte of information and to decide whether it is to be accepted as fact (or has a high probability of being factual) or not. It should enable the person to take a rational course of action based on such evaluations. This means the education should be grounded on reality.
Knowledge of math and mathematical reasoning, basic natural sciences, and basic knowledge of the humanities are must-haves. It is not so much the content of the knowledge that it is important...it is the ability to reason to derive that knowledge, or the ability to reconstruct the process by which such knowledge was derived, that is important.
A voter who is educated in the sense I defined above will then be able to evaluate political issues with a sound grounding on reality. When he is told, for example, that Obama is a Muslim terrorist plant and a neoconservative, the voter can figure out how logical this piece of information is supposed to be. An uneducated voter will lap up such propaganda with gusto, but a critical thinking voter will immediately spot the logical inconsistencies inherent therein. When Obama is criticized for saying that small town Americans are bitter because of economic decline, an educated voter can figure out whether Obama's statement is valid and whether the criticism against him is indeed deserved.
Basically, a good education is that which enables you to think clearly. Thinking clearly means a reality-based processing of information. Reality means that which is defined and accepted by natural science.
Ok, but how would you measure this as to exclude people who were not well educated? Practically speaking.
Ok, but how would you measure this as to exclude people who were not well educated? Practically speaking.
The imperfect way to measure this is to use the person's ability to enter and perhaps finish college. It is imperfect because it does not measure all the facets of intelligence, but it is better than none.
When a student enters college, he not only has to learn all the basic stuff I mentioned above by reading books or mastering course material, he also must have the social skills needed to navigate a college environment, which can be pretty complex. Educability cannot be measured by one IQ test. You have to use the composite performance of the student to be able to say, yeah, he possesses the basic skills required to be able to participate in the political process.
Now there are high schools which are so advanced that the elements of a good basic education are already met, so one doesn't have to be a college graduate to be able to vote. But for the great majority, it is the college education that gives the student the chance to become a well-rounded individual.
Perhaps being able to judge someone's character should also be placed on the list of what makes someone educated. Specifically, how long it takes someone to succesfully and correctly see through the veneer and get to the heart of someone's character. I'm sure 20 years would be a failing grade!
Perhaps being able to judge someone's character should also be placed on the list of what makes someone educated. Specifically, how long it takes someone to succesfully and correctly see through the veneer and get to the heart of someone's character. I'm sure 20 years would be a failing grade!
You are referring to Obama's attending Wright's church. The question then becomes: was Wright's criticism of the United States based on reality or not? What exactly did Wright say that was not factual? Did the US not enslave blacks? Did the US not nuke Japan? Did the US not have foreign policies that provoked the attack of 9/11? A reality-based education should then enable the voter to evaluate the information to see whether Wright's criticism was warranted or not.
You are referring to Obama's attending Wright's church. The question then becomes: was Wright's criticism of the United States based on reality or not? What exactly did Wright say that was not factual? Did the US not enslave blacks? Did the US not nuke Japan? Did the US not have foreign policies that provoked the attack of 9/11? A reality-based education should then enable the voter to evaluate the information to see whether Wright's criticism was warranted or not.
That the US govt gave AIDS to the black community. That was not factual. Therefore the criticism can be warranted.
While I don't really expect any honesty, all the same, take a moment to try 10 sample (from 100) question from the dept of immigration and naturalization in order to become a citizen.
Of course it would, as you'd virtually eliminate the ENTIRE vote of his opposition.
I guess you've been going door to door asking Hillary supporters if they have been to college?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have a winner
