Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

Oh how much better the world would be if we could actually have an enlightened population...

I would agree with the philosopher-kings approach, other than the fact that I'm totally terrified of the inherent corruptibility in such a system.  I don't trust any one person with the wheel.  I'd like to, but... no.

So the next option is to be a government that attempts to educate its populace.  It's not a guarantee, but I think it's the best we can do without the (considerably greater) dangers of "enlightened dictatorship."

(EDIT: this is, of course, why I'm dead set on being a teacher of some sort.  If I don't become a professor, I will do other teaching work)

Admirable of you, truly. 

The benefits of philosopher kings is that you have experts who know how to do things properly; the detriments are those experts will turn their talents to mayhem or just sloth. The problem with a program to educate the populous is that many of them don't want to learn, and many don't know how to teach.

One of my best teachers routinely marked correct outcome answers wrong, because students could not show how they reached their conclusions. That is, they couldn't show their work. She said she never meant to tell us what to think, only how and that she left the answers to us. It was our methods she judged. She was summarily fired, naturally, because she actually taught you the process of thinking.... Her class was immensely difficult but helpful and an honor.

I do so hope they make room for excellent educators like her.

university graduate ignoramuses

That's a bit of an oxymoron.

Idiocy doesn't know any boundaries between various walks of life. You'd think it does, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Absolutely. hence the phrase, "the dumbest smart person I know." 

[Lysabild]

Oh how much better the world would be if we could actually have an enlightened population...

I would agree with the philosopher-kings approach, other than the fact that I'm totally terrified of the inherent corruptibility in such a system.  I don't trust any one person with the wheel.  I'd like to, but... no.

So the next option is to be a government that attempts to educate its populace.  It's not a guarantee, but I think it's the best we can do without the (considerably greater) dangers of "enlightened dictatorship."

(EDIT: this is, of course, why I'm dead set on being a teacher of some sort.  If I don't become a professor, I will do other teaching work)

Admirable of you, truly. 

The benefits of philosopher kings is that you have experts who know how to do things properly; the detriments are those experts will turn their talents to mayhem or just sloth. The problem with a program to educate the populous is that many of them don't want to learn, and many don't know how to teach.

One of my best teachers routinely marked correct outcome answers wrong, because students could not show how they reached their conclusions. That is, they couldn't show their work. She said she never meant to tell us what to think, only how and that she left the answers to us. It was our methods she judged. She was summarily fired.... I do so hope they make room for excellent educators like her.

I didn't meet up at the free adult education center for almost 3 months of the 9 of schooling, but the teacher didn't put me off because she knew I could handle the test and had my depression to fight, and I got a B on the exam. Her trust in me let me continue my life instead of being stuck another year on the same class.

[Truean]

The problem being that we have meaningless letter grades.

What exactly can a "B" student do? What can they do if someone hires them? Well, we think they are better than a "C" student but not as good as an "A" student but we don't really know what the hell these categories of students know/can do either.

This is why there are two types of law students, those with experience and those without. When the time comes I'll have no use for the latter and will hire the former over them. I don't care what their GPA is, and suspect I will consciously hire those with lower GPA but more experience. This is because the client could care less. The question is, what can you do...?

At least this is how it is becoming in those sectors fortunate enough to be based upon meritocracy. I will fully grant that there are unfortunately too many other factors that enter into it. Then of course, there is the undeniable fact that the economy sucks and this bears on who gets hired, a lot.

[ECrownofFire]

There's a saying that my grandmother taught me that might relate to this.

What do you call the guy that graduates at the bottom of his medical school class?

Doctor.

[Truean]

There's a saying that my grandmother taught me that might relate to this.

What do you call the guy that graduates at the bottom of his medical school class?

Doctor.

Lawyers have a similar phrase, as to engineers, electricians and accountants.....

[Lysabild]

The problem being that we have meaningless letter grades.

What exactly can a "B" student do? What can they do if someone hires them? Well, we think they are better than a "C" student but not as good as an "A" student but we don't really know what the hell these categories of students know/can do either.

This is why there are two types of law students, those with experience and those without. When the time comes I'll have no use for the latter and will hire the former over them. I don't care what their GPA is, and suspect I will consciously hire those with lower GPA but more experience. This is because the client could care less. The question is, what can you do...?

At least this is how it is becoming in those sectors fortunate enough to be based upon meritocracy. I will fully grant that there are unfortunately too many other factors that enter into it. Then of course, there is the undeniable fact that the economy sucks and this bears on who gets hired, a lot.

I agree, but the B was important because it reminded me I weren't stupid and incabable (Extremely low self regard) and it means I passed, so I can do the next classes, which starts in 18 days and scares me shitless ;_; So much work ahead. I really hope I'll get some nice classes and teachers.

[Heron TSG]

I'm glad my school has been moving towards Standards Based Grading, with grades of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4. It makes far more sense. Knowing none of the standards gets you a zero. Knowing half gets you a two, and actually meeting all the standards gets you a 4.

The welding industry around here has standards for grading that most schools take part in. An A in arc-welding means you can produce a neat and tidy straight line of weld in each of 8 different orientations. A B indicates that you can do at least 6 of the orientations and your line is straight, if not neat. A C indicates that you can do 4 orientations and it looks like shit, but it holds its own weight. Nobody will ever hire anyone with a D or F. (It's actually a certification card.) I was forced into welding as a freshman due to overfilling in other classes, and thus I am certified in Washington State as a C+ welder. Not ideal, but hey, it's better than nothing in a zombocalypse.

[G-Flex]

The benefits of philosopher kings is that you have experts who know how to do things properly; the detriments are those experts will turn their talents to mayhem or just sloth. The problem with a program to educate the populous is that many of them don't want to learn, and many don't know how to teach.

The other detriment is that who the hell gets to decide who's sufficiently Philosopher King material? There's no objective way to determine how "enlightened" someone is, and if you were to come up with one, potential for abuse and corruption in the system would be pretty plain. That's why dictators are dictators; the guy in charge, running the system, is going to be the one deciding who's good enough to run the system: Him.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The benefits of philosopher kings is that you have experts who know how to do things properly; the detriments are those experts will turn their talents to mayhem or just sloth. The problem with a program to educate the populous is that many of them don't want to learn, and many don't know how to teach.

The other detriment is that who the hell gets to decide who's sufficiently Philosopher King material? There's no objective way to determine how "enlightened" someone is, and if you were to come up with one, potential for abuse and corruption in the system would be pretty plain. That's why dictators are dictators; the guy in charge, running the system, is going to be the one deciding who's good enough to run the system: Him.

Hence, democratic elections. Therefore, a functioning democracy is actually the closest thing to a Enlightened Dictatorship there really is.

[Taricus]

Except it isn't a dictatorship...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Exactly, it isn't. It's the closest thing.

[G-Flex]

The benefits of philosopher kings is that you have experts who know how to do things properly; the detriments are those experts will turn their talents to mayhem or just sloth. The problem with a program to educate the populous is that many of them don't want to learn, and many don't know how to teach.

The other detriment is that who the hell gets to decide who's sufficiently Philosopher King material? There's no objective way to determine how "enlightened" someone is, and if you were to come up with one, potential for abuse and corruption in the system would be pretty plain. That's why dictators are dictators; the guy in charge, running the system, is going to be the one deciding who's good enough to run the system: Him.

Hence, democratic elections. Therefore, a functioning democracy is actually the closest thing to a Enlightened Dictatorship there really is.

Hardly. I know there's no good method for figuring out who a "philosopher king" would be, but majority opinion swayed by savvy advertisement, politicking, and short-sighted rage is probably a worse than average method.

[Lysabild]

I've always compared it as thus:

Dictator: Higher chance for extreme outcomes, be they good or bad.


Democracy: Higher chance for mediocre outcomes, be they good or bad.

[G-Flex]

The problem with any form of majority rule is that the most fickle and easy-to-manipulate aspects of the voters wind up being the aspects that matter. There's a reason why politics in the US are what they are, for instance.

[Truean]

One of the main problems with democracy is that a skilled rhetorical speaker can make anything sound good with speech and oversimplifications.

Step One: Figure out whatever thing your target audience wants.

Step Two: Find a way to make it look like what you want, will lead to what they want.

Step Three: Minimize, ignore, or demonize the opposition and counterpoints, especially the individuals in the opposition.

People who don't understand the proper procedures or hows (as opposed to whats) of thinking, are in danger of falling for this. Sadly this means well over 90% of the American People. I imagine the same is true in other countries, though I have no personal experience in them.

Politicians who pander to the masses and tell them what they want to hear win over politicians who tell the people what they don't want to hear, even and unfortunately when that is the truth. Same thing with lawyers, everyone wants to hear "I can win you this case," except someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. Logically, one of those opposing counsels will be wrong and they know it. Thus it isn't ethical to promise results, only representation (combined with the inability to read the mind of 12 pissed off strangers shoved into a jury box...). Politicians are kind of the same thing in a way.

I would personally, though I realize this could never be real, care more about how that person makes decisions. A politician can promise X, but if X is dependent upon a legislative vote, then there simply is no guarantee until and unless that politician can read the other legislators' minds. They can't. It would be interesting to know how that politician intends to convince other legislators, because that will increase the politician's chances of actually passing X.