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.
Of course there are going to be some individuals who are exceptionally ambitious, self-motivated and inquisitive enough to learn a whole lot of stuff on their own. But reality is, most people aren't that way, even if they think they would like to be. The thing about formal schooling is, it forces you to learn all these things - learn how to study, to think critically, and so on, because your degree and, later, your career depend on it. If everybody who wanted to be a doctor or an architect or whatever could be expected to learn everything on their own initiative, and then trust them that they learned everything correctly, then we wouldn't need all this extra education. But most people aren't going to be that way, so we put them through school to force them to learn stuff they might otherwise be too lazy to teach themselves on their own initiative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
I have a BS in Chemical Engineering and an MD and have published over 20 bench research papers in the peer reviewed medical literature. I have taught at a few medical schools and have a high measured IQ. However, I sincerely believe that the impact of formal education on intellect is minimal. One can, if one is motivated, educate yourself and enhance your ability to solve problems, which is basically what an IQ test measures. Given the opportunity, I felt as though I could have accumulated the information and skills necessary for medicine much quicker if allowed to educate myself rather than go through the formal curriculum. Becoming a physician is much more dependent on memory than problem solving skills.
One of my paternal uncles, who worked at the post office and was a farmer, had a measured IQ of 181 (Einstein's I believe was 154 or 156). My uncle's IQ was measured formally in the military (he had only a high school education). He educated himself in complex mathematics and physics for entertainment, but never sought formal education beyond high school. When I asked him why he did not, he responded that he did not need someone else to read the books for him or explain mathematics, as he could easily teach himself faster and more effectively, as long as there were available texts (he bought many used at the local university). His sister (my aunt) was a "teacher" with an associate's degree. However, she purchased many medical texts and actually subscribed the the NEJM and JAMA. I would never "debate" medicine with her, as she was right 99% of the time, despite no formal medical education.
I have encountered other very intelligent individuals who have pursued careers which did not require advanced education and were perfectly happy with their occupation. Nonetheless, they were very intelligent people.
To me, a formal education represents:
1. dedication to complete a goal
2. willingness to engage in delayed gratification
3. some component of a work ethic
4. the ability to follow commands
5. the ability to work with others
Given a hard worker or a very intelligent person, I would take the hard worker every time if the options were mutually exclusive. There is ALWAYS someone smarter than you, no matter how intelligent you might be. As such, you can usually always learn more and also pick up educational "pearls" from ANYONE.
I have a BS in Chemical Engineering and an MD and have published over 20 bench research papers in the peer reviewed medical literature. I have taught at a few medical schools and have a high measured IQ. However, I sincerely believe that the impact of formal education on intellect is minimal. One can, if one is motivated, educate yourself and enhance your ability to solve problems, which is basically what an IQ test measures. Given the opportunity, I felt as though I could have accumulated the information and skills necessary for medicine much quicker if allowed to educate myself rather than go through the formal curriculum. Becoming a physician is much more dependent on memory than problem solving skills.
Most formal education, whether primary or advanced, relies mainly on memory and retention at the core, though there are advanced levels of problem solving concepts and techniques specific to a particular discipline that teach one how to approach specific problems. By contrast, analytic intelligence testing is geared to assessing one’s approach and ability to solve a conceptual problem that does not require prior knowledge gained from experience or formal education, testing the subject’s ability to deal with novelty, and employ abstract problem solving, rather than rely on previously learned methods to solve familiar types of problems.
You are a classic case supporting my point, proving that it was your innate intelligence that allowed you to excel in your chosen field, and not the education you received. The quality of education one might receive can certainly be predictive of the level of potential achievement, but has little to do with the baseline intelligence of the individual and their natural intelligence they were born with.
This is the foundational argument against the foolishness of “equality”. Equality doesn’t exist, because we are all different, and that alone makes “equality” impossible.
Of course there are going to be some individuals who are exceptionally ambitious, self-motivated and inquisitive enough to learn a whole lot of stuff on their own. But reality is, most people aren't that way, even if they think they would like to be. The thing about formal schooling is, it forces you to learn all these things - learn how to study, to think critically, and so on, because your degree and, later, your career depend on it. If everybody who wanted to be a doctor or an architect or whatever could be expected to learn everything on their own initiative, and then trust them that they learned everything correctly, then we wouldn't need all this extra education. But most people aren't going to be that way, so we put them through school to force them to learn stuff they might otherwise be too lazy to teach themselves on their own initiative.
Formal education SHOULD be teaching people how to think critically, but it’s absolutely not structured that way at all. Education teaches students WHAT to think, not HOW to think.
It’s all about presentation ... memorization ... regurgitation. The more precise one regurgitates what was presented, the higher the grade.
As for this bit about force ... you cannot force someone to learn anything.
But why only do President using their argument? If they want the national mob rules for the federal government then let's do the House and Senate and SC by popular vote and only the leadership positions in the house, senate and SC will come from California or New York since they are the most populated states.
The Speaker of the House will be from California. The head of the Senate will be from California, most of the judges will be from California or New York. Only a few big states will control and have a monopoly in the federal government.
Why not trash the constitution and how the government is elected and start all over again with California controlling the federal government. We shouldn't have a national election, it would be a waste of time. Just pick the 8 biggest populated states and have them just pick the federal government for the rest of the nation.
Some people think with just their emotions and not really think it well of the consequences of what they want at the moment. It will create a big division and representation will be so 1 sided on a few states. Why should the other smaller states stay in the union?
The House and Senate ARE elected by popular vote. The popular vote of each district for the House and each State for Senators.
Why would we elect the Supreme Court?
Some of the big states are dominated by the GOP. Like Texas, which is larger than New York.
Formal education SHOULD be teaching people how to think critically, but it’s absolutely not structured that way at all. Education teaches students WHAT to think, not HOW to think.
What - because you don't happen to like what they sometimes teach? Nope, sorry it doesn't work that way.
Quote:
It’s all about presentation ... memorization ... regurgitation. The more precise one regurgitates what was presented, the higher the grade.
Sometimes it is, and when it is it's because it's something you just have to know for a particular subject.
But writing papers, doing experiments, analyses and all kinds of other stuff you do not just in college but even in high school gives you practice in thinking analytically about things, putting information from various sources into a (hopefully) coherent presentation, and so on. Yes, that is critical thinking.
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.
So when your college professor or even high school teacher gives you an assignment to write a paper about, say, how effective red-tailed hawks might in keeping field mice populations in check, you need to read stuff about red-tailed hawks, what they eat, how they hunt, how often they hunt, and so on. And you need to learn about field mice, how fast they breed, what their populations might be in some area, and so on and so forth. And based on your research you can make a conclusion in your paper that red-tailed hawks might have a significant effect on field mice populations, or not. It may not be accurate, and it may not be a great paper, but at least you did some research, made some assumptions about what you learned, and came up with a conclusion which you wrote in your paper.
That constitutes critical thinking, and is what everybody does at least some of in college, and even high school to some extent. It's not all about just memorizing stuff and regurgitating facts, as you claim. There is indeed some of that, but it's not the whole thing.
Now, it's true some people are going to be better at this than others, but even for the people who aren't all that good at it, as long as they stick with it and plug away, like anything else they'll get better at it - at least a little bit. So all these papers people have to write in college do indeed help even some of the less-gifted students to learn a few more critical thinking skills. It's not entirely something that's innate.
THANK YOU, for the kind words of support. Since you resort to personal attacks, using an oxymoron, no less, it is clear you have capitulated.
The STATE of EMERGENCY is still in force and effect. Or have you noticed that the government has been redeeming its notes with lawful money? (Gold / silver coin). (See Title 12 USC Sec 411)
United States, Senate Report 93-549 states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (Title 12 U.S.C. sec. 95a and b). "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
Executive Order 13818
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (Public Law 114-328) (the "Act"), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)) (INA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, yada yada yada.
FYI:
For legal beagles, one can now find that there is a claim that the “State of Emergency” was not ended, but modified, by law, in 1976. The National Emergencies Act (Pub.L. 94-412, 90 Stat. 1255, enacted September 14, 1976, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1601-1651) is a United States federal law passed to stop open-ended states of national emergency and formalize the power of Congress to provide certain checks and balances on the emergency powers of the President. However, in my copy of the 1992 U.S. Code, Title 12 USC Sec. 95 is still in force and effect, granting sweeping powers to the SECRETARY OF TREASURY. Likewise, the previous entry in Wikipedia (2014) asserted the fact that 12 USC sec.95 was the codification of the Emergency which has since been “scrubbed.”
Section 2. The revocation, in whole or in part, of such prior Executive orders relating to regulation on the acquisition of, holding of, or other transactions in gold shall not affect any act completed, or any right accruing or accrued, or any suit or proceeding finished or started in any civil or criminal cause prior to the revocation, but all such liabilities, penalties, and forfeitures under the Executive orders shall continue and may be enforced in the same manner as if the revocation had not been made.
WHOOPS, they didn't really revoke it, did they?
Do not believe me - go read the law for yourself.
And go look up who the "U.S. governor of the World Bank and IMF" is, and that he shall not be paid by the US Gubmint (See Title 22 USC sec 286(a)(d)).
All of this is utter hogwash. And blatant misinterpretation of the law.
"People like you"? I guess you mean uneducated. I have a PhD, you can call schools liberal but please tell me, then, what you consider well educated.
The electoral college was invented to placate slave states. That's the historical background you're championing. No thank you.
" I have a PhD"
Well whoop-di-do. What was your paper on?
I've read some of the papers written by people trying to get their PhD and I have NOT been impressed.
"The electoral college was invented to placate slave states."
If you believe that was the ONLY reason you should turn your Ph-D!
"Electoral College: A System Born of Compromise"
"At the time of the Philadelphia convention, no other country in the world directly elected its chief executive, so the delegates were wading into uncharted territory. Further complicating the task was a deep-rooted distrust of executive power. After all, the fledgling nation had just fought its way out from under a tyrannical king and overreaching colonial governors. They didn’t want another despot on their hands. One group of delegates felt strongly that Congress shouldn’t have anything to do with picking the president. Too much opportunity for chummy corruption between the executive and legislative branches."
"Another camp was dead set against letting the people elect the president by a straight popular vote. First, they thought 18th-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural outposts. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power.
Out of those drawn-out debates came a compromise based on the idea of electoral intermediaries. These intermediaries wouldn’t be picked by Congress or elected by the people. Instead, the states would each appoint independent “electors” who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency."
No it wasn't. The 3/5 Compromise, yes. The Electoral College mechanism itself was always on the board.
The smaller states didn't trust the larger ones, a couple of which weren't slave states (Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts. All three had minimal number of slaves but weren't in the same league as Virginia).
The 3/5 came about as a compromise between counting slaves as 1:1 (what the slave states wanted) and not counting them (what the non-slave states wanted).
But, but, but, he has a Ph-D!!!!
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.
