It’s almost as if people who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Maybe that’s why there this push to teach only STEM as if there is nothing to learn from literature, history and art (hint art speaks volumes about history). It’s a lot easier to control a population ignorant of humanity even if they can build weapons for your armies.
I’ve seen you beat the anti-STEM drum a couple of times, and I’m more than a little baffled by the implication that the emphasis on STEM is dangerous and leads to easier “control of the population”. Anecdotally, I work in a field (marketing) with mostly liberal arts majors for an engineering firm; the engineers are far more interested and aware of history than the lit majors.
STEM makes for more skeptical, logical, and damn it, educated voters; exactly what a crazy reactionary demagogue doesn’t want.
That’s a quality sign.
That is an inaccurate assessment of my position actually. I am not that extreme at all. I am not anti-STEM. I am against the idea that the only education that matters is STEM… as in we should pull funding from all else. I do not support that. History matters. Art matters. Music Matters.
Is this really a thing though? I’m pretty sure the new administration is OK with pulling funding from ALL education. I’m honestly curious because I haven’t heard of this.
I have. STEM only degrees, cutting everything from schools except reading, writing and arithmetic. Public education is supposed to create good employable workers so anything that doesn’t contribute to that should be removed to cut costs. No more political agendas. Those are just a few of the examples.
I am a big supporter of science, math, technology and etc. I contribute to organization that press those for young girls so they don’t lose interest when all the toys and teachers start telling them it’s a boys only field… but knowing history is important. Recognizing art not only for it’s aesthetic but it’s voice is also important.
I hear the invalidation of the non-STEM educations frequently because too many people forget Economics is a social science. This makes them feel confident in discarding those other education paths around me because they clearly don’t know much about economics, or in some cases me.
Being creative is part of the human condition. Whatever any government agent or agency does, the arts will survive. Sure, when things are lean it’s damn hard to earn a living while pursuing the arts (especially if you’re a mediocre artist), but that’s a personal choice. STEM majors are better served by their education in earning a living, but that doesn’t demean liberal arts. It just is. So, if there’s a budget to cut, how do you prioritize the cuts? Sure, the best answer is “don’t cut”, but if you must make cuts…?
I think the missed nuance is the intersection between creative thought and STEM. A great STEM education prepares people to work in and on systems developed by others. Train students in creative practices simultaneously and they’ll be inventing new systems. I agree that creativity will survive, but it’s creativity applied to modern technical disciplines that lead to thriving economies. Defunding arts education is a bright sign that the people designing the budget lack an understanding of innovation.
I absolutely agree with this. We are using computational fluid dynamics to design devices with a high degree of resolution and are also able to rapid prototype those devices thanks to novel manufacturing techniques. The technology in my company has taken dramatic steps in the past 10 years and that is due to advanced computational computer science and then engineers applying their knowledge creatively to design things that weren’t possible a short time ago.
However, I don’t think this definition fits what Nesrie has in mind. Only engineers (and possibly those who work in the same industry) can appreciate what has been created and marvel at how we got there. While the development impacts people’s lives, they are largely ignorant of that fact. It’s art, but hidden proprietary art whose admirers are a small subset of the population. Kind of like the hidden treasures in the Vatican. :D
You don’t have to guess. I made a reference earlier, maybe not here but another thread, about how very different vehicles might look today if it was only about a device that gets you from point a to b with no consideration about craftsmanship, safety, or aesthetics. When I think art, I don’t just think about canvas and paint either.
My main point is closer to what Clay said, Artr/History/study of society is important… too, for a lot of reasons. They should not be cut.
90 days… for drywall.
Holy hell, what is wrong with people? The War on Drugs might be the most enduringly harmful aspect of Reagan’s legacy.
How the? I mean, doesn’t everybody carry their coke all over the floor of their car? I’m sure the poor man will find a hotshot attorney who will take the case and argue they never bothered to test it because of his prior conviction.
Err, Nixon?
This has been floating around a bit, and it indicates the perceptions of black lives being different can start as early as, well five. The research does not cover the whys, just the perception.
The field drug test police use to test for cocaine are notoriously unreliable. However, many poor defendants plead bargain into jail time because they can’t afford bail.
The tests they describe should be used strictly as screens: you use a cheap test with a low false negative rate and a higher false positive rate to identify samples that require a more expensive test that eliminates the false positives.
It’s like using a PSA test to identify men who need a more thorough check for prostate cancer.
There is absolutely no reason though that a lab, a real lab, should take 90 days to test that substance again. Either they didn’t care enough to test it quickly, or they have a backlog of unreasonable lengths.