basic logic

One is struck by the fact that so many youngsters these days come out of our public school system after 10 or 12 years-- at considerable expense to the taxpayer-- with no knowledge and no skills. How does this happen? What are these kids doing, just sitting around talking about their goddam feelings all the livelong day? It would seem so.

One possible way to offset this would be to require high school students to take a course in basic logic, so that before they graduate they'll have some idea of the difference between a sylllogism and a tautology. I know, maybe this won't work. Maybe some students-- maybe a lot of them-- are simply immune to logic. But then at least when they indulge in over-emotional paroxysms, the illogic of their position can be pointed out to them. 'Don't you remember, we covered oxymorons in school.'

get back to the notion of social SCIENCE

For some time now, I've adopted the convention of putting the word science in quotation marks when it's preceded by the word social: social 'science.' That's because whatever else may be coming out of social 'science' departments these days, it sure as hell ain't science. It's political activism, pure and simple.

This is more than a mere question of truth in labeling. Particularly in taxpayer-supported institutions, citizens have a right to expect that what goes on in these departments is a disinterested pursuit of the truth, wherever that may lead. Instead we have these phalanxes of agitators who have holed up in university departments when no one was looking, from which they speak and publish to push their personal agendas.

Students and  taxpayers have a right to expect that lecturers will make impartial presentations of differing views on particular topics. This does not happen in departments in which opposing views cannot be presented, in which the lifetime meal ticket known as tenure is used to prevent differing voices from being heard. Legislators ought to look into these situations and require that social 'science' departments get back to the dispassionate pursuit of the truth. In other words, get back to science.

tracking

It's occurred to me that when you play sports, you like to play with people who are more or less at the same skill level as you are. If you're playing with people who are better than you, they'll resent the mediocrity of your play, the errors you make, and that you might even lose a game for them. (For an individual sport like tennis, it gets boring being easily defeated time after time.) If you're playing with people who aren't as good as you, the opposite is true, and you're going to resent their incompetence. If you're playing with people at about the same skill level, it's more fun, and the outcome will always be in doubt.

If that's true for physical endeavors, it's also true for intellectual endeavors. Students should be in classes with people of about the same ability level in the different subjects. Otherwise, they'll resent having to waste time trying to get the 'slow' students to 'get it.' On the other hand, if you're in a class with people who are better than you, you'll feel swamped and inferior. This is no good for anybody. If you're in classes with people at about your ability level, students will feel comfortable, and the learning will proceed apace.