http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-sat-exam-american-values-chinese-students-20140829-story.html
From the LA Times article:
Chinese students have shown an insatiable appetite for attending U.S. colleges — last year alone, more than 235,000 were enrolled at American institutions of higher education. But now, some in China are grousing that the SAT may impose American values on its best and brightest, who in preparation for the exam might be studying the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights instead of “The Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung.”
[...]
The U.S. College Board in March announced plans to redesign the SAT to include key U.S. historical documents in one portion of the test, known as the Evidence-Based Reading and Writing, by spring 2016.
“The vital issues central to these documents — freedom, justice, and human dignity among them — have motivated numerous people in the United States and around the globe,” the College Board said in a statement. But those are the exact values that the Chinese Communist Party has deemed as threatening to its rule; Chinese activists who have tried to promote such values have been silenced or jailed.
There is much more discussion in the original article.
(Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Monday September 01 2014, @06:37PM
US universities built to teach US students to live in the US funded by US citizens and US taxpayers on US soil.
Is it too much to ask that the exams foster basic competence in this area as well as others?
Why is this a problem? This so-called appetite for attending a US school is largely demanded by and funded by the Chinese government.
Let them fund their own universities.
I don't see why their students should get a pass that US students don't get.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday September 01 2014, @07:01PM
What part of "university" do you not understand? Science and scholarship know no nationality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @08:00PM
Yeah? And? Are the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights not also appropriate for study at University? If so, why not?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday September 01 2014, @10:38PM
Irrelevant for science. Just look at it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Tuesday September 02 2014, @07:05PM
+4 Insightful? What?
Do you know what a university is? It is not a School of Science.
You can take your anti-American rhetoric and shove it where you put your copy of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. It is because of those documents that the USA was able to become the most prosperous, powerful nation in the world, a nation that has explicitly defended freedom and lit the way for other nations. It's a good thing for the rest of the world that the USA exists and became what it is, otherwise we'd be speaking German or Japanese right now.
And that's not to say that the USA is perfect or has done no wrong--but you can also take your false dichotomy...
(And if by chance you're not anti-American, then why in the world would you make such an inane comment excluding all but science? As if science were the solution to all of the problems in the world. Maybe we need to fund a study to search for the "decapitating gene.")
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:28PM
Your honour, in my defence, I invoke the Poe's law [wikipedia.org] ("on Internet, nobody sees your grin"): I was aiming for Funny, but didn't mark it as such. Oh, well...
Ah, you see, I'm not an US resident, much less a citizen. But... somehow I don't think my post/rhetoric has a place on Wikipedia, which I used for my research of (your?) history
(is the em-ed a hint enough that I don't consider science as the only path worth pursuing for an education? And that I consider education is not something that one needs to go to school for?)
See my opening answer above. My apologies for the offence, it wasn't my intention to troll this time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by CRCulver on Monday September 01 2014, @07:07PM
Have you been living under a rock for decades? Universities in the US and throughout the developed world see foreign students as a cash cow and are very much interested in attracting them. They typically pay much higher tuition than locals, and they go back to their home countries saying good things about their US experience, which in turn brings even more of their friends and family with cash in hand. While in the past these foreigners were e.g. rich Gulf Arabs, for quite a few years now it is Chinese students that universities have been looking to attract.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday September 01 2014, @11:33PM
None of what you wrote has anything to do with the point at hand.
Besides, great parts of what you wrote simply aren't true.
1) Many of these students end up getting US funds http://www.internationalstudent.com/schools_awarding_aid/ [internationalstudent.com]
2) they don't all go home
3) they don't say good things about the US, those that do get arrested (did you read the story?)
I'll say nothing about turning down straight A american students to fill their quota of Foreign students.
But the real point is When In Rome you do as the Romans. You don't study in France and bitch about French customs and history being prerequisites. You don't bitch about the French entrance exams because they require you to know French things.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday September 02 2014, @05:17PM
China has supposedly been investing heavily in their higher education system over the past ten years or so, much as they did in bringing their infrastructure up to a level to support a modern economy. This could just be posturing in order to get more students to stay home.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @07:56PM
Why the hell is frojack's comment scored "troll"? Could the person who scored it thus give us an explanation? I really think whoever did this needs to step forward and give their reason(s).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @08:16PM
To demonstrate that freedom of speech is not tolerated in America, frojack shall be made an example. Continue giving lip service to the Bill of Rights. Our wise and glorious leaders expect doublethink.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 02 2014, @02:46AM
Wasn't me, and I agree it is inappropriate, but there are a few things.
Jingoistic Americanism.
Mis-understanding the purpose and aims of higher education.
Also mis-understanding the function of Scholastic Aptitude Testing.
Lacking apparent relevance to the Fine Article.
But then again, some times we expect too much out of Soylent. After all, it's made of people. And some of those people might even be Chinese.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday September 02 2014, @03:47PM
I would call labeling a viewpoint you disagree with "Jingoistic Americanism" to silence dissent an offense as bad as actually being jingoistic for real.
Mis-understanding the purpose and aims of higher education.
Also mis-understanding the function of Scholastic Aptitude Testing.
In theory (make your populace better) vs. in practice (make money/indoctrinate). Please elaborate.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday September 04 2014, @07:48AM
Normally, I would not respond to this. But it does seem to be a sincere request for an explanation.
First: American Jingoism is often hard for American to detect. Unfortunately it sticks out like a sore thumb to the rest of the world (with the possible exception of Britiain, which has its own jingoistic problems. Frojack seemed to be saying that American Universities exist to teach American Students how to live in America. This is just completely absurd on the face of it. From this, I infer that Frojack does not possess a degree from a liberal arts college, since even a college is dedicated to the study of knowledge for its own sake, and in the case of a university, my god man, it is right there in the name! It is not an Americanicity! So I stand by the accusation of jingoism, unless Frojack wants to fess up to the fact that he (or her) is actually Belgian. Of course, that really would only make matters worse, what with the "Heart of Darkness" and all.
Second: Oh, where to begin? Especially from an American point of view, the conceptual ideals of education are all but lost. Make your populace better? Aristotle thought this was a good idea, but in America they just found that having an educated electorate lead to good government, something that in no circumstance can be allowed! So, and this is the death of higher education in America, we allowed for Universities to have Schools of Business. Business is not universal. It is a scam. It is buying cheap and selling high, which you could not do if everyone knew what you were buying for.
Ah. secrecy, control of information, monopoly: Not scholarship. Bastards.
So it is not surprising that the jaded regard higher education as yet another invesment. But those of us who hold to the true flame of wisdom are watching you, and we will sneak up behind you, and when you least expect it, we will fart in your general direction. because your father smelt of elderberries, and you are nothing but a mercenary, selling knowledge you do not actually possess in the service of a cause in which you do believe.
It is very hard to get across to members like Frojack. I really wish him the best. But for the pragmatic minded, the idea that there is reality beyond their own insignificant selves can be incomprehensible. But incomprehensibility is not equivalent to irreality.
And I really wish Americans could have a bit more knowledge of the actual world, and not base all their ideas on Russian Emigres and Austrian economists! (Illegal intellectual aliens, seriously!)
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday September 04 2014, @02:41PM
I'm sure there's a lot we could learn from other countries' societies, but it's not a panacea. The evil you know, eh. I'm sure I would eventually find the cons of e.g. European approaches, it would probably just take longer for me to be able to recognize them. Maybe they aren't trying to kill off all economic regulation like us, but they have more stringent free speech rules when you hurt someone's feelings.
I'm kind of curious how many parliamentary systems actually have 3 or more viable parties, too. From what I've heard lately it sounds like the third one in Britain is the "kicking dog" and not actually as useful as I previously thought.
Finally, it strikes me as rather rich, getting lectured by a European (?) on being nationalistic. Or are we using the Crusades Defense? (That was then; this is now!)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:52AM
Finally, it strikes me as rather rich, getting lectured by a European (?) on being nationalistic.
And what, other than your American ignorance, makes you think I am European?
The point is that universities are universal, they are not "institutes of national jingoistic learning", so all this complaining about entrance exams and ideology is pointless. The pointlessness of it is make more poignant by your response, so thank you for that. And who says irony is dead?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday September 08 2014, @02:32PM
And what, other than your American ignorance, makes you think I am European?
That you're talking about universities and "ignorant Americans." Or can't you just tell us where you're from and stop striking poses?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 10 2014, @05:13AM
Poses. I am a Poser? Au Contraire, madamoiselle! Maybe you missed my point! I don't really think this is possible, since I was rather explicit with it, but here goes again: Universities are universal, they are members of the Church of Reason, they do not belong to the nations which are lucky enough to host them. OK, we review. American Universities should not teach American stuffs to Americans, they should teach the same disciplines and knowledge that all universities teach (OK, Phoenix and Online For-Profit University are, um, "different"). To say otherwise starts to sound like that spoof in the "League of Gentlemen" of a shop in Royston Vasey (this is a British show, so if you in fact really are an American, you can be forgiven for not being familiar with it), where they say "This is a local shop, for local people!" Point being, again, universities are not functionaries of the nations where they reside, they have things like academic freedom, tenure, and the right to accept students from foreign countries, if they damn well please. American universities are pretty good at this, outside of the outliers mentioned above and the strange obsession with intermural sports.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday September 10 2014, @01:41PM
This is devolving into the "Slashdot/SN is not an American website" argument again. Sure, they can aim at supporting everyone, but they're unarguably located in the U.S. and probably administered by a bunch of Americans. They can hire foreign professors and accept foreign students but that doesn't change what they are.
Learning is a universal pursuit. *Where* you learn isn't. The learning will always be influenced by the social norms etc. etc. of the host.
Yet again we're arguing idealism vs. pragmatism. Next, let's argue the definition of "physically located in the U.S.", prove black is white, and get killed at the next road crossing.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday September 10 2014, @02:10PM
Maybe you missed my point! I don't really think this is possible, since I was rather explicit with it,
Me calling your point bullshit does not constitute me missing the point.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Gertlex on Monday September 01 2014, @06:39PM
So any complaints/requests from the Chinese government will be plain laughable.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Monday September 01 2014, @09:34PM
So any complaints/requests from the Chinese government will be plain laughable.
I'm not so sure why the complaints would be laughable. The students take this test not because they want to show to the whole world that they know US laws. They take this test simply to be admitted; because they are forced to.
I personally don't want to study any foreign laws that I don't find attractive. Those who love the US system of government don't need any SAT to learn it. Those founders had quite a few good ideas, and there is nothing inherently wrong in appreciating those. Unfortunately, this has little to do with the modern system of government, and US presidents are well known for their public disdain for that "old piece of paper" that interferes with their designs to wage wars and impose taxes and subjugate people.
Education is nothing but a business. A student should be admitted only based on what he knows in the area that he is going to study. If you want to be an engineer they shouldn't test your poetry skills; if you want to be a doctor you probably don't have to know music. Why are they indirectly testing people's knowledge of laws of some country? Obviously, foreigners should be excluded, or - if the test has to verify their ability - they should be tested on laws of their own country. Chinese government has a legitimate complaint.
(Score: 1) by Gertlex on Monday September 01 2014, @09:40PM
I specifically said "Chinese government" for this reason. They ban taking the test as a whole already, so their (again, the Chinese government) commentary on this is irrelevant.
But I totally agree that these university businesses, who often declare themselves international... places of learning (better words for this elude me just now), should in principle be against the US Civics bent to the revised SATs.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Monday September 01 2014, @10:06PM
I specifically said "Chinese government" for this reason. They ban taking the test as a whole already, so their (again, the Chinese government) commentary on this is irrelevant.
They explain what exactly they do not like in this test. Perhaps a pure-science test would be not banned? Would you, personally, like that your child has to study Mao's little red book if you want her to study in China? (There are some areas of learning that are done best in China - such as Chinese languages, for example... or manufacturing.) If you don't like that requirement, should your government speak on your behalf in order to improve the situation?
It's, of course, buyer's right to walk away. But in many cases the buyer is trying to change what he can't accept before giving up and leaving. Negotiations are a civilized way of smoothing out those differences. The first part of negotiation is explaining to the other side what exactly it is that you do not like. China is acting very reasonably here.
BTW, I never studied Mao's works, and I presume they are an awfully boring read, far worse than all the US founding documents, newspapers, and founders' personal writings taken together. But I don't speak for China; and obviously Chinese government has reasons to be concerned. A civil war in China, a nuclear state, would likely mean TEOTWAWKI.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday September 02 2014, @01:29AM
The first part of negotiation is explaining to the other side what exactly it is that you do not like. China is acting very reasonably here.
Really? Why do you condenser it reasonable?
To forbid knowledge of a different system of government? This is reasonable?
To simultaneously PAY for their students to come to American Universities while as the same time FORBIDDING taking the entrance exam? This is reasonable?
The US isn't the only country worried about predatory Chinese government demands [telegraph.co.uk] on Universities.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday September 02 2014, @02:04AM
Really? Why do you condenser it reasonable? To forbid knowledge of a different system of government? This is reasonable?
I'm sure if you live in a free country you cannot be forbidden to study ideas of Juche, for example. Or Satanism, or any other pet phobia, whichever is hated more. However freedom to study such a thing, voluntarily, does not equate mandatory study of that subject in order to be allowed to study something else entirely. Is there any evidence that Chinese students are flocking to HK because they want to study US civics and demonstrate what they learned? China is trying to negotiate the package. Is something wrong with negotiating a deal?
To simultaneously PAY for their students to come to American Universities while as the same time FORBIDDING taking the entrance exam? This is reasonable?
It is not reasonable, and that's why China is complaining. It should not be necessary, in order to study physics, to become indoctrinated in some alien religion. (I used this word here because it's a stronger but equivalent substitute. The US government is centuries away from its founding documents. Those papers and those ideas are not more than a religion nowadays, with every court feeling capable of interpreting the Constitution in whichever way they want. I, personally, appreciate those ideas very much... but they are largely gone. Those ideas are poisonous to any modern society that is based on total control ... be it China or the USA.)
The US isn't the only country worried about predatory Chinese government demands on Universities
They are concerned that financial donations become instruments of control. Welcome to the world of US-created IMF [wikipedia.org] that does exactly that. What's good for a goose... But anyhow, if they are so afraid, why they don't just refuse to take donations in excess of some trifle sum? Problem solved.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday September 02 2014, @03:35PM
I would think that being afraid to let people learn about other systems of government is a pretty direct indication that YOUR government sucks.
If I were in charge of the U.S., I would have no objections whatsoever to people learning about the governments of China, Scandinavia, Russia, India...Thailand...in fact I would ENCOURAGE it. More talking means more chance that things can actually improve.
And we're complaining about an American test testing American values? That's like complaining about urinals in men's rooms discriminating against women.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Jiro on Tuesday September 02 2014, @01:53AM
I would object to it because it's a bad thing to mandate that anyone study. My objection would not be because it is a foreign country's idea, but because it is a bad idea regardless of country. I would also object if America required that prospective students study it.
If my child had to study some Chinese document which was unobjectionable with respect to human beings in general, but useless with respect to Americans, I'd say "fine, it's China's country, if you want to study there, play by China's rules".
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday September 02 2014, @02:26AM
That's a good answer. But what if the material that your child needs to study is debatable? Who is going to be the judge? In this case Chinese government is the judge, just because they can. Their concern is that early US ideas may be destructive in a modern society that China just happens to have. They don't even need to debate the inherent worth of the Declaration of Independence. They only say that following such an example in modern China would end up as a human catastrophe. I heard that from a highly educated mainland Chinese national. China is a powderkeg of hundreds of mini-nations, each larger than many European nations. They are ruled by iron fist; as result, the budding kings are suppressed or simply shot. But the country is stable. If you want to know what happens when those kings raise their head, there are many examples - just look for wars.
I will leave the question of whether democratic ideas are worth a bloodshed to someone else. The last century saw too many social experiments, and they invariably ended badly. There is, IMO, value in stability, even that stability is restricting some of your freedoms. This is not obvious, and some societies gladly fell into anarchy that they understood as the ultimate freedom.
(Score: 1) by pnkwarhall on Monday September 01 2014, @11:03PM
I personally don't want to study any foreign laws that I don't find attractive.
Nobody cares what you want to do or what you find "attractive", particularly not school administrators.
Those who love the US system of government...
What does "love" have to do with anything here? The US is one of the preeminent governments in the world -- you should probably learn something about its government in any **liberal arts education**, in whatever country you attend university *. An at least sketchy knowledge of other major countries' governments would seem to fit into the liberal arts agenda.
A student should be admitted only based on what he knows in the area that he is going to study
Again, what part of "liberal arts education" are you missing? Generally SAT scores are used as part of determining entry into liberal arts schools, where whatever your intended **major**, you're supposed to get a general education on a variety of subjects, and graduate as a well-rounded citizen (implicitly, of the USA). We don't have tons of Chinese nationals traveling to the US to attend tech schools. In fact, from the little anecdotal evidence I have, one of the main reasons Chinese parents want their kids to attend US universities is specifically because the learning environment is not a classicly Chinese one. (I've taken several math/technical classes from Chinese professors, and quality aside, their teaching style is **drastically** different than Americans'.)
And, if nothing else, isn't one of the main purposes of formal education to culturally indoctrinate? I would think that on Soylent this point would be taken for granted. :)
*I got a degree at a US university, and we never discussed any other country's government or political structure. I consider that a failing and a hole in my formal education.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday September 02 2014, @01:03AM
When 100,000 students make their dislike known, school administrators better take notice. They are not gods; they are simply salesmen.
I learned about the foundation of the USA in school. I had no such course in the university[*] - we tended to focus on math, physics and other necessary studies. Unfortunately, study of Communism was also thrown in as a long, boring and mandatory course. It was all free, of course. But we did not study foreign governments. Any graduate with such a need could easily do so on his own. It's not rocket science.
Who in his right mind would pay money to be indoctrinated, and what for? The purpose of education is to produce a thinking man, not a man for whom the thinking had been already done. University != Church.
*I got a degree at a Soviet university, and we never discussed any other country's government or political structure. I consider that a success, and it created no holes in my formal education, as I was able to learn whatever I wanted at a later time. Perhaps you would call my POV excessively pragmatic and insufficiently socially oriented. But I don't want to waste time on unnecessary knowledge.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by pnkwarhall on Tuesday September 02 2014, @03:25AM
--
But I cannot believe that you cannot see that one of the main goals of a university education is to culturally indoctrinate, **especially** if you attended a Soviet university.
FTFA:
Chinese students are required to take “thoughts and morals” lessons in Communist ideology as early as first grade. In China’s college entrance exams, questions regarding core Communist theories such as Marxism and Maoism are essential to a student’s success.
These indoctrinatory goals may not be made (as) explicit in other countries, but if you think that there is no implicit cultural education going on in schools, university-level or lower, than my "paranoia" won't convince you! Maybe your "excessively pragmatic and insufficiently socially-oriented POV" makes you miss the more basic cultural lessons being taught in school alongside the math and science.
Does the phrase "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it" mean nothing to you? If you cannot see the value in a liberal arts (i.e. broad, cross-domain, emphasis on history, literature, and communication, in addition to the specialization of choice) education, whether you're aiming to be an engineer or a novelist, than you cannot truly believe your statement that "the purpose of education is to produce a 'thinking man'".
What is the "unnecessary knowledge" that you refer to? What knowledge is unnecessary for the thinking man?
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Tuesday September 02 2014, @03:55AM
Sorry to disappoint, but Soviet universities were not particularly strong on indoctrination. There was a mandatory course in history of CPSU and then in Materialism and then in Scientific Communism, but they were seen as a joke, and *nobody* expected anyone to believe any of that. Furthermore, graduates were not even expected to join CPSU because there was a strict quota on non-proletarian classes. A factory floor sweeper could get in in an instant; a factory technologist, unless recommended by Important People, rarely could become a member of CPSU. Soviet intelligentsia was meant to be a useless quantum foam in the political process, present everywhere but amounting to nothing. All they could do is to talk in their kitchens. (Not that members of CPSU had much influence either, but the gesture alone was clear enough.) As result, in 1990s plenty of intelligentsia eagerly lent their support to anti-government movements. Some still do - out of habit, I guess, of being contrary. This shows that there was no effective indoctrination pretty much anywhere in the Soviet chain of education. Maybe there was some in 1940's or 50's, but that was too long ago.
Perhaps China takes it further. In USSR university entrance exams did not include communist theories of any kind - especially because they were not studied in school, IIRC. Typically one had to take four exams, but those with better school grades could take only two. I took math and physics and was automatically admitted.
First, it's hardly possible to learn everything. You have to choose. Second, not everyone is equally attuned to physics and to literature. I would simply refuse to take any literature or music courses, were they to be offered. (They weren't. There was very little flexibility until the 3rd year anyway.) Perhaps that impairs my ability to think, but after quite a few years of life I have no reason to complain about the outcome :-) And, if that matters, I wrote and successfully sold a book :-)
(Score: 1) by pnkwarhall on Wednesday September 03 2014, @01:48AM
[I]t's hardly possible to learn everything.
And this is the crux. If you can't learn everything, you must choose what is most important to learn. If the idea of a liberal arts education is to create a "well-rounded" graduate-citizen, then what do you teach him to reach this goal?
The answer to that question is the implicit indoctrination to which I referred.
--
On a more personal level, tftp, your comments that literature and music (in other words, "the arts") are an "unnecessary" part of education cut me to the quick. To me, art is the expression of what makes us (both individually and collectively) meaningful and unique. I think **everyone** is "attuned" to some form of art, more or less. As a tech-relevant example, people who work in code can appreciate the "elegance" of code, or to put it another way, the **artfulness** of the code. I respect the general curriculum of a liberal arts education because it shows an appreciation that a well-rounded graduate-citizen should be able to appreciate the meaningful, and IMHO **fundamental**, contribution that the arts make to society.
I'm glad that you feel that your life has had a positive outcome (despite your beggared education ;) ) and I hope to expect no less from someone that can think and articulate themselves as well as you can. And I can't really believe that you have no appreciation for literature or music or $artistic_endeavour -- your lack of willingness to take these type of courses in university doesn't say anthing about your lack of general interest, just your lack of interest at spending time in formal schooling studying them. But I hope you feel that a life with an appreciation for artistic beauty, and indeed the creation of such, is much richer than one without.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday September 03 2014, @02:45AM
As you already realized, I am not an expert on any such thing :-) And yes, Heinlein was wrong, IMO, when he claimed that "specialization is for insects." Easy to disprove by pointing at any common, good man who couldn't compose a song, or paint a portrait, if his life depended on it.
I guess you have better sense of art than I do. Yes, I also read books (lots of them, as matter of fact,) but I rarely listen to music, never watch movies, and don't visit theaters of any sort. You can safely say that I am not a well-rounded citizen, since I'd be defending myself from any attempt to impose any such thing onto my limited mind :-) Perhaps it's natural that people with such structure of brain prefer to work with machines, in dark cubicles. I see art in good design, as you surmised, but I do not see it in flailing one's arms and legs on scene (a.k.a. ballet.)
I will note (and not challenge) your statement that arts are useful to society since I cannot judge for myself how true that statement is. I don't see proof of it in history; I don't see evidence that love will save the world. Perhaps that it's because there isn't enough love in the world. A pragmatist would rather say that only taking dangerous toys away from silly humans will save the world.
In part that is true. My school contacts with literature were horribly unsuccessful at best. Perhaps that's because I am even less empathic than a common human. For example, the teacher asks me: "Count Andrew was walking the battlefield, stopped by an old oak tree [litra.ru], and thought about something. What was it that he was thinking?" My answer would be simple: "The text of the book does not contain the information that you require." If you bother to translate the text in the link you will find a whole page that is filled with touchy-feely thing which I barely comprehend, let alone can write on my own. You could say that my thinking is mechanistic, and perhaps it is - but to compensate, I can talk to machines, and machines talk back to me :-) I barely can hear the difference between the same note in two adjacent octaves, but I can calculate those frequencies, and I can measure them with a counter that I will build out of old scrap. There is place for everything under this Sun, and we will do well if we reject methods of Procrustes - which schools are famous for.
(Score: 1) by pnkwarhall on Wednesday September 03 2014, @04:15PM
There is place for everything under this Sun, and we will do well if we reject methods of Procrustes.
Everyone is valuable and contributes to the greater whole, "well-rounded" or not.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @06:43PM
The writer shows an extreme unfamiliarity with contemporary China with a remark like this. While China remains a one-party state with policies that strike many as repressive, its current regime only partially inherits Maoism alongside other policy orientations, and it no longer regularly cites it.
Imagine how silly it would look if someone attacked Putin's supporters by claiming Russians are flogging the works of Lenin -- there is no doubt that Putin wants to restore Russia as a superpower like it was in a supposed USSR golden age, but he is not doing this on the basis of 20th-century Communist thought, and no one wants to read Lenin any more. The same goes for China. The perennially popular tenets of Confucius and the post-Maoist thought of Deng Xiaoping are vastly more important in China today than Mao Zedong, who remains a useful effigy to occasionally bring out for patriotic purposes, but whose writings have little following.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday September 01 2014, @07:02PM
So does this disprove the main topic of the article "some in China are grousing that the SAT may impose American values" or is it an irrelevant detail, like your comment about Lenin in an article about current events in the Ukraine?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @07:26PM
A factual error in the part of a news article known as the lead is hardly an "irrelevant detail", rather a sign that the article is not worth reading or citing, and one should search elsewhere for trustworthy and informed commentary.
I didn't mention Ukraine anywhere. Perhaps you'd like to read my post again?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @12:35AM
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/chinese-president-orders-journalists-to-learn-marxist-news-values-1.1913450 [irishtimes.com]
The Chinese govt is still marxist. It has been focusing on developing 'advanced productive forces' for the last few decades. It might end up like France, with a large number of state owned companies, a big social net, and a more authoritarian government.
(Score: 2) by khchung on Tuesday September 02 2014, @12:20PM
A quick google will you a wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Higher_Education_Entrance_Examination [wikipedia.org] that tells you China have roughly 9 million students every year trying for the exam for a chance to get into a university, with a historical entry rate of less than 10%.
So you are saying out of those remaining 90+% students who can get admitted to a university in China, only less than 3% went to the US for a chance of a university degree?
Are we supposed to be surprised, impressed or disappointed by that tiny number?
In contrast, more American students went abroad to study in 2009 alone (over 270K) http://www.iie.org/Who-We-Are/News-and-Events/Press-Center/Press-Releases/2011/2011-11-14-Open-Doors-Fall-Survey-Study-Abroad [iie.org]
Shall other countries start to complain about it?