Is General Education a waste of Time ?

Stiffler2

I ask simply because is it worth someone that wants to study art any need for them to know history, geography etc....

The best reason I can give is simply :

"back in the day" one would learn their trade from a very young age, be apprectices until they hit say 21 and then they become "pro's" as it were.

Take Leonardo Da Vinci for example or Michelangelo. Both created great art which the world still hasn't replicated today probably because they practised it throughout their entire life and then became really good at it.

Wouldn't you want a finance minister who studied nothing but accounting, economics, financing etc... instead of a fool in Leinster house who knows a little about everything.

Personally I don't think we'll ever see art like we did back in the Renaissance simlpy due to the fact that no one studies a subject in such detail anymore.

Very bad at explaining myself here so hope you all understand what I'm trying to get at here.

Omackeral

A well written OP. Kudos.

All I have to say is that I've learned more from Reeling In The Years than I have from 13 years of school.

Biggins

I know your using finance just as an example but staying with that example...

I wouldn't want a finance minister who doesn't know other things in general. If they can't understand or know about how other things work and/or have influence/domino effect on finance matters alone, they are leaving themselves blind.

In other words, in whatever field a person IS an expert of, they should have at least a basic understanding/knowledge generally of other factors, of how the world works beyond their limited field of higher expertise.

I hope the above makes sense too.

AlmightyCushion

The reason we'll never see art like we did during the renaissance is because most of the stuff that is considered art today would be considered rubbish during the renaissance. Sure just look at that one that won the Turner Prize years ago for an unmade bed covered in piss and semen. How the hell can that be considered art.

LeixlipRed

The reason we'll never see Renaissance era art again is because no one cares about drawing pictures of Jesus anymore.

MungBean

Da Vinci was much much more than an artist. He's the opposite of what your talking about in fact. He was a genuine genius who could see the bigger picture. Thats why he was so great at the things he did.

phasers

maybe in 500 years people will look back at our time fondly and long for someone with the genius of that Kardashian tool.

IrishZeus

The approach to education being suggested in the OP would be extremely limiting. Its bad enough having to choose college courses at 16 without having to choose earlier in life so that you can study it for life.

On the bright side, there would be a lot more cowboys and astronauts... but don't think too many 6 year old's would want to be an accountant...

Biggins

MungBean wrote: »

Da Vinci was much much more than an artist. He's the opposite of what your talking about in fact. He was a genuine genius who could see the bigger picture. Thats why he was so great at the things he did.

Yes, because he knew of people's needs he designed water duct systems, he researched into body biology systems and many other areas not just including flight and even weapons.
He had a great understanding of knowledge in general - and it stood to him and make him what he was, even greater - to rise above the rest...

LeixlipRed

Imagine not knowing about the water cycle? People would go back to thinking the earth is flat again pretty soon.

Snakeblood

Stiffler2 wrote: »

I ask simply because is it worth someone that wants to study art any need for them to know history, geography etc....

The best reason I can give is simply :

"back in the day" one would learn their trade from a very young age, be apprectices until they hit say 21 and then they become "pro's" as it were.

Take Leonardo Da Vinci for example or Michelangelo. Both created great art which the world still hasn't replicated today probably because they practised it throughout their entire life and then became really good at it.

Wouldn't you want a finance minister who studied nothing but accounting, economics, financing etc... instead of a fool in Leinster house who knows a little about everything.

Personally I don't think we'll ever see art like we did back in the Renaissance simlpy due to the fact that no one studies a subject in such detail anymore.

Very bad at explaining myself here so hope you all understand what I'm trying to get at here.

Breadth of experience and knowledge influences your ability and perception within your field of expertise. Consider Richard Feynman looking at the spin of a thrown dinner plate.
http://www.stuleja.org/vscience/osp/contents/physicsClub/feynmanPlate.html

Or you know, don't. That's cool too.

But I think if people just stay within the zone of what is known within their field, they can't take in the outside influences that can create works of genius.

Oranage2

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

The reason we'll never see art like we did during the renaissance is because most of the stuff that is considered art today would be considered rubbish during the renaissance. Sure just look at that one that won the Turner Prize years ago for an unmade bed covered in piss and semen. How the hell can that be considered art.

You're mind has been obviously warped by modern crap not to appreciate real beauty


Absolutely amazing

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Yw0WkDhSwl0/TDIGM4HplVI/AAAAAAAAA1U/aOrxAccRzeI/s1600/emin-my-bed.jpg

Stiffler2

Biggins wrote: »

I know your using finance just as an example but staying with that example...

I wouldn't want a finance minister who doesn't know other things in general. If they can't understand or know about how other things work and/or have influence/domino effect on finance matters alone, they are leaving themselves blind.

In other words, in whatever field a person IS an expert of, they should have at least a basic understanding/knowledge generally of other factors, of how the world works beyond their limited field of higher expertise.

I hope the above makes sense too.

Hi Biggins,

I agree with you on the above. I wouldn't want a finance minister that doesn't have basic education and they should know other areas that would influence their job / position but they would still be alot better at accounting than someone that did the standard 4 years or whatever it is IMO if they were studying it from a young age.
I also think they wouldn't need to know certain subjects like art, geograhpy or a 3rd language but would like them to know maths, accounting & econonics.

Stiffler2

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

The reason we'll never see art like we did during the renaissance is because most of the stuff that is considered art today would be considered rubbish during the renaissance. Sure just look at that one that won the Turner Prize years ago for an unmade bed covered in piss and semen. How the hell can that be considered art.

Well if that's the case I must turn my bedroom into an exibit and start charging at the door.

Logical Fallacy

Stiffler2 wrote: »

I ask simply because is it worth someone that wants to study art any need for them to know history, geography etc....

The best reason I can give is simply :

"back in the day" one would learn their trade from a very young age, be apprectices until they hit say 21 and then they become "pro's" as it were.

Take Leonardo Da Vinci for example or Michelangelo. Both created great art which the world still hasn't replicated today probably because they practised it throughout their entire life and then became really good at it.

Wouldn't you want a finance minister who studied nothing but accounting, economics, financing etc... instead of a fool in Leinster house who knows a little about everything.

Personally I don't think we'll ever see art like we did back in the Renaissance simlpy due to the fact that no one studies a subject in such detail anymore.

Very bad at explaining myself here so hope you all understand what I'm trying to get at here.

Hmmmm....in Da Vinci's world, despite his own genius he could never fly via mechanical means. People died from medical issues that are incredibly easy to cure today. A huge percentage of the population could neither read nor write.

In a world where young people learn a vast variety of subjects before deciding what they want to specialize in we can communicate instantly with people all around the world, travel by a majority of means to anywhere we choose etc etc etc.

I'll keep things the way they are.

LeixlipRed

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Hi Biggins,

I agree with you on the above. I wouldn't want a finance minister that doesn't have basic education and they should know other areas that would influence their job / position but they would still be alot better at accounting than someone that did the standard 4 years or whatever it is IMO if they were studying it from a young age.
I also think they wouldn't need to know certain subjects like art, geograhpy or a 3rd language but would like them to know maths, accounting & econonics.

Teaching children accounting (which is essentially the art of remembering where things go) from a young age would result in a wave of child suicides I'd imagine. Very sad that would be

Biggins

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Hi Biggins,

I agree with you on the above. I wouldn't want a finance minister that doesn't have basic education and they should know other areas that would influence their job / position but they would still be alot better at accounting than someone that did the standard 4 years or whatever it is IMO if they were studying it from a young age.
I also think they wouldn't need to know certain subjects like art, geograhpy or a 3rd language but would like them to know maths, accounting & econonics.

Its good to have a basic knowledge about basic things - maybe though, its just as important to be able to understand how in short or long ways, they can all relate to each other.
If one is tied in knowledge to a limited field, the ability to see a fuller picture of relationships (relating to further advantage/disadvantage) is stemmed - and that is never good in outcome, short term or long.

old hippy

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all art is subjective. People dismissed Picasso and Van Gogh before him. All the way through the history of art - the innovators initially met with hostility or indifference.

jimmycrackcorm

If we went soviet russia style we could pick a persons career after birth and just have them learn subjects pertinent to that.

jester77

The OP has a point. The last time I had to remember a theorem or something from Shakespeare was back in school, not once in the many years since have I ever needed or wanted this type of info. My time would have been better spent learning finance, politics, nutrition... you know, the type of stuff that is actually relevant to life.

CrazyRabbit

I would like to see more practical knowledge being taught in school. I really don't believe that I'll ever *need* to know that the battle of Hastings took place in 1066.

Things that should be taught in school:
Basic Pyschiatry.
Investing & bugeting.
Healthy cooking & nutrition.
Problem Determination/Root Cause Analysis.
Self Discipline.
Basic presentation & sales skills.

I'd also like to see kids/teens being allowed to get extra training in areas that they have a strong interest in.
I would have loved to have been able to get training in woodcrafting, as it's something I've always been fascinated with. But being in an acedemic-focused school, it just never happened, and I ended up doing something else (programming, which I still like thankfully).

LeixlipRed

jester77 wrote: »

The OP has a point. The last time I had to remember a theorem or something from Shakespeare was back in school, not once in the many years since have I ever needed or wanted this type of info. My time would have been better spent learning finance, politics, nutrition... you know, the type of stuff that is actually relevant to life.

How does your PC work?

IrishZeus

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If we went soviet russia style we could pick a persons career after birth and just have them learn subjects pertinent to that.

"Insert link to Futurama clip where everyone has a career chip inserted"

Ellis Dee

Education is never a waste, but bear in mind what Oscar Wilde said: "My education was interrupted for a number of years while I went to school" and "Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.":):):)

Biggins

IrishZeus wrote: »

"Insert link to Futurama clip where everyone has a career chip inserted"

Chips inserted?

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&biw=1024&bih=1165&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=D00sQio-k_ybzM:&imgrefurl=http://www.moviefancentral.com/dropdeadfred/reviews/9526&docid=N9HgqwJfGmPORM&imgurl=http://www.moviefancentral.com/images/pictures/review74591/chip.jpg%253F1315850222&w=400&h=300&ei=7aayTpq0Hc6f-wbRmMn3Aw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=210&vpy=155&dur=611&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=171&ty=102&sig=105221180665306370132&page=1&tbnh=146&tbnw=182&start=0&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

mikemac

Sometimes you need a fresh perspective though

A teacher isn't always the best Minister for Education, too many connections, friends and set ideas built over their years in schools and on committees. They know the current ways and never had to think of anything new

James Reilly is loaded down with baggage and friends and influences for his job now

Michael McDowell was a top barrister and legal mind and still is. Wasn't a great minister though

A finance minister has a whole department to advise them, their job is to lead and make the big decisions, not get bogged down in tiny details.
Like when they cut capital gains tax and the revenue didn't go down, in fact it went up. That was clever

jester77

LeixlipRed wrote: »

How does your PC work?

Works ok, when wine is not crashing

policarp

If all you could talk about was Accountancy, then you'd be a very boring person at parties. . .

Biggins

policarp wrote: »

If all you could talk about was Accountancy, then you'd be a very boring person at parties. . .

Now if you were an I.T. technician at a party...

* "Hi beautiful... would you like to play with my floppy?"

* "Can I give you a hard drive?"

* "My stick will fit into yours!"

* "Where would you like me to insert it?"

Yea, a lot more fun at parties!

Caraville

God how depressing would life be if we only knew stuff about one thing. The thoughts of being in a couple where I only know about my job and my husband only knew about his job... nearest bridge please!

I hated maths. Hated it with a passion. And yeah, I've never used pretty much 90% of what we did. But I'm still glad I challenged my brain, and I probably subconsciously learned various skills as I worked out problems. Education is important for things like nutrition, sexual relationships, consumer rights, cultural awareness. I'd hate to think people wouldn't have at least a basic grasp of these.

Although having said that, I'd settle right now for people to improve their basic literacy. This is becoming a massive problem and needs huge amounts of work.

Stiffler2

jester77 wrote: »

The OP has a point. The last time I had to remember a theorem or something from Shakespeare was back in school, not once in the many years since have I ever needed or wanted this type of info. My time would have been better spent learning finance, politics, nutrition... you know, the type of stuff that is actually relevant to life.

Very True, I wonder if you cut out all the nonsense in primary school and up to 4th year how quickly one could finish school.

I reckon I could re-do school in about 2 yrs instead of 15 yrs. Only the last 2 yrs of school have any relevance after you finish school, the rest is rubbish.

Can you imagine the technology we would have if you had children studying to be scientists when they were 5 onwards - we'd all have star trek ships by now.

If the Finance Minister studied Economics, Maths & Accounting from 5 yrs old we'd be the richest nation in the world.

Etc Etc.