site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   32637 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I did specify smart slackers -- the goal is to provide some diversity of thought. Based on what I'm seeing with my kid that's going through this right now, this would be much more impactful than any 'quality' boost provided by teacher training. You think that I need two years of diploma to teach high school algebra? I'm already teaching it to my kid because his actual teachers seem to be failing miserably.

Again, my point is that slackers are unlikely to be effective teachers, so a "more slackers" policy is unlikely to improve education. I an not arguing for requiring teacher training. I am arguing against encouraging slackers to become teachers.

Eg: Bob teaches history. He requires students to write 10 papers per year. With 150 students and 10 minutes to grade each paper, that is 15000 minutes of grading per year. In contrast, Joe, a slacker, gives multiple choice scantron tests. Total grading time:3000 seconds. Which teacher would you choose for your kid?

High school students seem by and large incapable of writing papers these days, so Bob's approach seems like either a waste of time or a way to fail 90% of the history class. (or both) The scantrons at least will teach the students to get a decent grade on their AP exams.

A smart slacker will probably find some sort of middle ground -- but the important point is that when he's like, y'know, teaching he may be able to bring some depth to the curriculum for the 10% who would benefit from it.

Who's a better history teacher -- someone with a history degree who did summers digging up native archeological sites, or a teaching degree and a few 2-300 level history courses?

Bob's approach seems like either a waste of time

Well, slackers always convince themselves that hard work is a waste of time

or a way to fail 90% of the history class And what is wrong with that, if 90 percent do failing work?

the important point is that when he's like, y'know, teaching he may be able to bring some depth to the curriculum for the 10% who would benefit from it.

You seem to think that I am advocating for dumb, hardworking teachers in lieu of smart slackers. I'm not. I am advocating for smart, hardworking teachers. Because that is what you would get if teachers were paid like lawyers.

Who's a better history teacher -- someone with a history degree who did summers digging up native archeological sites, or a teaching degree and a few 2-300 level history courses?

This is a complete red herring. As I just said, I am not advocating for or against teaching degrees. I am arguing against encouraging slackers to become teachers.

Finally, I note that you did not answer my question.

Who's a better history teacher -- someone with a history degree who did summers digging up native archeological sites, or a teaching degree and a few 2-300 level history courses?

This is a complete red herring. As I just said, I am not advocating for or against teaching degrees. I am arguing against encouraging slackers to become teachers.

Well I am mostly advocating against teaching degrees -- strike the 'slacker' comment from the preceeding conversation if you like; it was mostly playful rhetoric anyways. Maybe you will get hardworking history grads who's other option is baristadom.

Finally, I note that you did not answer my question.

I thought it was fairly clear that my answer was 'mu'?

Neither of those teaching methods are bad per se -- it mostly depends on the teacher's knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject.

My AP Western Civ teacher was no dummy, and not lazy -- I think he taught his other history classes in a Bob-ish way. (although I doubt he ever had 150 essays to grade, and I'm absolutely positive that he didn't spend 6*40 hour weeks per year on that.) But as AP History is (mostly? I forget) a scantron test, he taught us how to get fives on that first and foremost. He also had an amazing depth of knowledge on European history, and was happy to go down whatever rabbitholes in class time. The test/assignment balance was irrelevant to whether he was a good teacher or not -- as was his teaching degree.

I thought it was fairly clear that my answer was 'mu'?

I understood your answer to be re students en masse, as opposed to re your own child,

Neither of those teaching methods are bad per se -- it mostly depends on the teacher's knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject.

I didn't ask whether one was bad per se; I asked which is better. And, since we are only talking about the effect of slackerness, we can hold all other factors constant, including knowledge and enthusiasm.

But as AP History is (mostly? I forget) a scantron test, he taught us how to get fives on that first and foremost.

  1. Multiple choice is currently 40 percent of the grade. The short answer section is relatively new; there used to be one MC section and three essays. But MC was never the majority if the test.
  2. If he truly taught you how to get 5s, first and foremost, then he was not doing his job properly, IMHO.

Then we disagree -- the whole point of taking AP classes is getting the credit for your college application. If a teacher doesn't enable that, he is doing a bad job.

The point of that story is that the two are not mutually exclusive -- pretty much everything I know about non-Canadian history is because of that guy; he was an excellent teacher, and capable of teaching both ways. Neither way was 'better'.

And I don't know why you think that I think I'm talking about my own child exclusively -- AFAICT almost all of the kids are pretty bad at math (and writing essays) these days.

the whole point of taking AP classes is getting the credit for your college application

Holy Mother of God. I don't know what to say. Every time I think I'm sufficiently cynical about the world, I get reminded I am much too idealistic still.

This is not education, this is churning out extruded product. And the point of college application is not learning anything (after all, you can always look it up on Google when you're in the job), it's to get the piece of paper so you can apply for the job.

I'm an idiot, and I know I'm an idiot, and I never had a chance of going to college anyway. But I am so glad I never got sucked into this meat-grinder process where you don't do Honours classes for the sake of learning, you do them to grind out points for your application. We do have the points race over here, but there still remains the faint chance of actually learning something in school, not simply "bobble these sections to get all fives on the mechanised test".

This is not education, this is churning out extruded product

AP is not honours -- it's explicitly 'advanced placement' for college credits. Lots of people (like me) will just take some tests with no instruction whatsoever to get the credits. If you are taking AP courses to learn stuff, you are wasting your time.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats