This is the previously mentioned commentary on Mark Slouka’s article “ Dehumanized: When math and science rule the school” Since the article. Mark Slouka’s essay (Dehumanized: When math and science rule the school) comes across as a persuasive argument that the humanities. Instructor’s Note. This essay is Julia Evanoff’s analysis of Mark. Slouka’s article “ Dehumanized.” Julia does a great job speaking to a general audience that may.
|Country:||Moldova, Republic of|
|Published (Last):||19 April 2016|
|PDF File Size:||17.7 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.39 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
We are the best country. It seems reasonable to argue that education does not lead; it follows and adapts itself to the needs of production — in actuality to the needs of the ruling elites who control the means of production and also the institutions of education for that matter. While he is there, he engages the waiter in cultural talk and puzzles.
There is a great deal of alarm among many people — including Bill Gates — that this loss of its lead will cost it dearly in world leadership, not only in terms of GDP but also in terms of leadership in the world.
In Brazil the educational public system is horrible, with very, very few exceptions. What confuses me about the article is that the author doesn’t seem to think math and science help with these goals.
More on that later, but essentially we teach our children from pre-school to 2nd grade very very well, but starting in third grade we test them to death and essentially kill off any love of learning, for the majority, from there on out, save the exceptional and passionate.
Thanks for this post.
When math and science rule the school comes across as a persuasive argument that the humanities have lost out to math and science in American schools and that this does not bode well for the future of democracy. By implication he associates the framework of qualitative values like justice and fairness and ethics to the humanities. More like a stand, I said. The arts and humanities are there to “upset people”, prompt “unscripted, unapproved questions”, and, according to Don Randel, “force us into ‘a rigorous cross-examination of our myths about ourselves'”.
In fact, not even close. And I think, Slouka uses it in that sense.
Email Print Twitter Facebook. However, this familiarity by itself is not enough. The fact that the essay is persuasive should be no surprise — Slouka is a professor of English and he employs the art of rhetoric at its finest. The people you find in the streets, those who start a revolution and throw the stones, are in the majority young unemployed males.
The following is an open letter to Harpers’ Magazine.
Education: A Critique of Mark Slouka | TheSouthAsianIdea Weblog
Science teaches you to madk at the evidence, to search for causal relations, correlations, and to identify and fix problems. My WordPress Math Fork Loading Literature reveals personal experiences. I studied in one of those from 5 years old to 16 years old high schoolluckly, my mother was able to get a grant for me, otherwise she wouldn’t be able to pay it for me. Slouka’s article also doesn’t seem to be aimed at the educators themselves, most of who I guess are very sympathetic to his attitude, but he’s complaining about the business oriented dehumqnized of the educational system.
But I think he is terribly wrong with respect to his understanding of science and scientific institutions. Math, science, physics, biology, etc, all included in the curriculum. Science — through neuroscience, psychology and social psychology and related fields — also addresses the inner world.
Critical thinking is necessary but not sufficient.
We overcame that as well, and I guess mrak average Brazilian wouldn’t like to hear that one, even though formal education is our most serious issue today. They are valued merely for their ability to produce “stuff” rather than for their ability to produce knowledge. And we would simultaneously close the loophole that now allows megacorporations to pay little or no taxes. Of course, I’m pretty sure I don’t even know “what” this would be, so I don’t have much slpuka for argument. In his essay, Dehumanized: History as an academic discipline discovers and recounts events, but seldom explains them.
That is why, for example, most scientists are also atheists. Not only are the sciences, with a few notable exceptions, politically neutral; their specialized languages tend to segregate them from the wider population, making ideological contagion difficult.
The output is “the reasoned search for truth. But beyond economics lies the plane of politics that Slouka has not considered at all. Maek the same way, it is hard for someone to know what it is to be South Asian unless you spend some time in that society and come to know it from the inside.
Sure, the topics that are questioned and reasoned about are different for mathandscience than for the humanities, as it pointed out by the article.