Sociology should be a mandatory class.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I think that, pound-for-pound, the class that I have gotten the most out of during my life has to be my Sociology class.

I am thus amazed that it isn't completely mandatory that high schoolers at least take 2 years of it and that two semesters of it isn't mandatory for college.

I mean, honestly.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I will second that if we add Economics to the list.

I think a lot of the economics arguments I have been in personally would have been a lot less painful if people at least had a basic grasp of the subject.

Also, more critical thinking and learning how to read between the lines would be good too.

[Username17]

The forces of anti-intellectualism currently are trying to unravel Biology (Creationism), Economics (Supply Siding), Medicine (Anti-Vax), and Meteorology (Climate Denialism). Sure, all science is under attack all the time, but those are the big ones. For some reason, people don't attack fundamental theories of electro-magnetism that often (ICP excepted).

So people should learn enough about those subjects to tell when hey are being fed a plate full of absolute bullshit. But yeah, it's definitely true that a basic knowledge of Sociology makes understanding political issues much, much easier. I also would fucking love it if everyone had enough math to know what the gambler's fallacy was.

-Username17

[Juton]

Mandatory classes aren't the solution. How many people do you know that can't do math or write at the level of a high school student? They all (or most) had to take those courses, but if you don't want to learn something you don't.

I really believe nearly everyone at the university level should learn practical reasoning and argumentation, it can really help someone understand the world. I've also seen Grad students drop it in the first week because they didn't want to be there.

Sociology, Economics, Practical Reasoning, none of it will keep a dumbass from being a dumbass.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The forces of anti-intellectualism currently are trying to unravel Biology (Creationism), Economics (Supply Siding), Medicine (Anti-Vax), and Meteorology (Climate Denialism).

I wonder why evolution gets attacked all of the time but neuroscience and gene theory does not.

The next Big Thing as far as anti-intellectualism goes will be neuroscience. Count on it.

For some reason, people don't attack fundamental theories of electro-magnetism that often (ICP excepted).

It's probably because electro-magnetism has some extremely obvious advantages for believing in the scientific version (unlike meteorology or evolutionary theory) and there really isn't an intuitive way to explain even really simple things like atomic theory. I mean, I am confident that I could get a non-indoctrinated 8-year old of average intelligence to understand evolution at a high-school level after a month's worth of classes, but there's no way that I could explain radiation at any level beyond what Ninja Turtles can do.

The flip side of more intuitive theories is that they are easier to distort. There's no way to 'simplify' Newtonian mechanics so that the average person can grasp it while making it still appear to work, but it's really easy to distort economics.


Honestly, I'm actually pretty astounded that sociology manages to allowed to be as liberal of a science as it is. I think it might have something to do with the fact that the empirical studies (which is the meat and potatoes of the field) are extremely decentralized as opposed to something like macroeconomics--where some cranks with 50 million dollars can completely dominate the field.

Heh. Macroeconomics. It's so underbaked that it's seriously like modern-day alchemy--people know so little about the subject that scientists operating from completely wrong assumptions can still make very important discoveries. The fact that someone like Friedman, despite being a blatant biased crank, can improve our knowledge of the fields so much shows how fucked macroeconomics is.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Mandatory classes aren't the solution. How many people do you know that can't do math or write at the level of a high school student? They all (or most) had to take those courses, but if you don't want to learn something you don't.

I'm sure that a big factor as well would just have to be the onset of time.

I've forgotten almost all of trigonometry and logarithms since getting out of high school. I've had to relearn algebra from scratch after I realized that I didn't know how to do something as simple as factoring polynomials.

[Username17]

I wonder why evolution gets attacked all of the time but neuroscience and gene theory does not.

The next Big Thing as far as anti-intellectualism goes will be neuroscience. Count on it.

Absolutely. Right now, the only reason neuroscience is getting a pass is because people do not understand how thoroughly neuroscience debunks all their mystical mumbo jumbo. Once that really sinks in, you'll have people demanding to teach the controversy of memories being stored in the heart or some shit.

there's no way that I could explain radiation at any level beyond what Ninja Turtles can do.

Don't sell yourself short. Tiddly Winks. Seriously. It demonstrates the principles of radiation extremely well. Bust out a set. Or pogs. Or just shoot watermelon seeds at each other by pinching them. Quantum states are hard, but the idea that things are made of really tiny legos and that when things are unstable, individual legos shoot across the room at high speed and knock over other structures is franky pretty intuitive in the modern world.

-Username17

[TOZ]

I'd say add Philosophy in there too, but that's probably because I'm taking it right now and getting my face caved in by logic for two hours at a time. It's rather refreshing.

[CatharzGodfoot]

What would you remove or change to accommodate such a curriculum? It sounds like the general consensus here leans towards systems of critical reasoning, or 'models' rather than 'facts'.

A middle school social studies or history teacher could land herself in hot waster trying to teach why things happen (which can be a sensitive issue) rather than forcing the memorization of names and dates (which are rarely as controversial outside of Texas).

[Doom]

Weird, I have a fairly minimal opinion of Sociology; such majors have the lowest GPAs (in and out of their class), low GRE scores (above Education majors, which are the bottom) and, seriously, nothing in that class is necessarily true...just stuff to talk about.

One time, a few years ago, a student left his/her sociology/gender studies book behind in one of my classes, so I took the liberty of reading it when I gave a test (proctoring being pretty dull).

It was odd stuff; one section dealt with an upscale ice cream parlor in a wealthy white neighborhood. One of the products offered was vanilla ice cream, in the shape of a human female breast, with a chocolate covering. The parlor was introduced as a way to prove (sic) how rich white people still long for their ‘black mammies’ (sic) from the slave-owning days…hard to believe 3 credit hours of this is worth just as much as 3 credit hours on the theories of Isaac Newton.

I may be a bit biased and all, but no, I don't this is particularly important 'knowledge' everyone should have.

[Kaelik]

Actual Sociology, involving studies and statistics and statistical theory and such can be pretty good.

But Sociology is by a large proportion, the most home to random gender theory idiots who want to make every damn thing about how white people are inherently inferior, and men are inherently violent assholes, and minorties and women are naturally super nice all the time, and can only become mean when corrupted by the white man, ect.

So if you get stuck with one of those tards as a teacher, or a large percentage of the students, it's going to be fucking painful.

Lago probably did not, you apparently overread a book for one that did.

Pro-tip: Gender anything has a 90% chance of not being real sociology at all, and just being shoved in sociology because where else are you going to put stupid people who want to preach about how people's actions are indicative of the biases that professor has and totally prove what a great person that professor is?

(Answer, if it doesn't involve the word Gender, they shove it in philosophy.)

[Orca]

I wonder why evolution gets attacked all of the time but neuroscience and gene theory does not.

The next Big Thing as far as anti-intellectualism goes will be neuroscience. Count on it.

Some of the anti-animal testing anger is aimed at neuroscience. This is because some neuroscientists perform tests on those animals which are frankly creepy - there was a defence of this published in New Scientist which was a definite own goal.

[Manxome]

What would you remove or change to accommodate such a curriculum?

History, perhaps? Students are currently required to take it continuously throughout their public education, and it's almost universally reviled...though, like pretty much all human knowledge, I'm sure it can be interesting an enlightening when taught well.



I personally feel like everyone would benefit from knowing something about my field (computer science), but I'm not sure that's objectively true, and even if it is, that probably doesn't mean that everyone would benefit from a class on it. Understanding boolean logic and being able to express (and understand) algorithms and procedures in unambiguous terms are fairly widely-applicable skills, but there were students in my college's "into to programming" class that had trouble with the concept of a loop (or so one of the tutors told me). I feel it necessary to point out that the median SAT math score of entering students at this college is 100% and classes covering multi-variable differential equations are required for all students. I'm sure those students are capable of learning a lot of CS, but I'm not sure throwing them into the "Fundamentals of CS" class generates the conditions under which they would actually do so, even if they wanted to.

[Kaelik]

About a year ago I had to sit through a college class on "being a religious idiot who thinks religion is based on reason."

In that class, I learned, amongst other things, that religious people hate those same experiments because the evil scientists are trying to find things out just to find things out and for no other reason.

Highlight of class: Attempting to explain to professor that "Scientists" are not trying to take human nuclei and implant them in pig ovums that have had the pig nuclei removed in order to grow man/pig hybrids for organs and other nefarious purposes because the resulting creature would not be human and have no soul.

The reasons being many, and ranging from "If you do that procedure you result with a fully human being with absolutely zero pig traits[1]" to "Scientists don't make decisions about harvesting organs based on souls, because they don't believe in souls."

[1] Technically, they convert energy like a Pig, seeing as they have pig mitochondria, but who fucking cares, because they also have a four chambered heart like a pig, because we are fucking really similar genetically.

[Neeeek]

I'd say add Philosophy in there too, but that's probably because I'm taking it right now and getting my face caved in by logic for two hours at a time. It's rather refreshing.

In that case, "Philosophy" is probably on overly broad term. I would strongly recommend a basic critical thinking or logic course be required for all college students in their first semester of college. It's one of the few classes that will help you be better at nearly everything else you try.

[Maj]

Also, more critical thinking and learning how to read between the lines would be good too.

It's one of the few classes that will help you be better at nearly everything else you try.

Word.

I took critical thinking and informal logic in my freshman year of high school, and again for spoons and giggles in college. And then I made my husband take it because he needed it.

I agree - it should be mandatory. Other classes that should also be mandatory: Something to teach rough writing skills, basic chemistry, and math at least at an algebraic level. But they shouldn't just be classes in a subject. They should be classes in life that happen to use the subject being taught (Like how you might use algebra to make a bracelet, or what happens when you mix comet cleanser with ammonia).

But, I also think that all students need to be required to live out of their country in a place that doesn't speak the same language.

History, perhaps? Students are currently required to take it continuously throughout their public education, and it's almost universally reviled...though, like pretty much all human knowledge, I'm sure it can be interesting an enlightening when taught well.

I think some history is good, but the way the rotating schedule worked in my school district, I ended up taking US History three years in a row and missing out on some other history classes (that I don't remember because I didn't take them). I hate US History.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Home economics should be mandatory, too, but the task of decoupling it from its 'for girls only' image is herculean.

I was trying to swap chili con carne recipes with a guy and he didn't know the basics. Not like what goes in the chili but basic stuff like making kidney beans and browning the beef. How sad is that?

[Count Arioch the 28th]

My mom taught me that stuff, because my Grandfather was 60 years old and couldn't make a pot of coffee. In a coffee machine. She decided right then and there that I should be able to take basic care of myself when I lived on my own.

However, I am not for teaching other guys that. Being able to cook better than most people is how I get laid. It's what sets me above and beyond most men. I'm not willing to have more young males competing with me for potential mates.

[Jacob_Orlove]

What would you remove or change to accommodate such a curriculum?

History, perhaps? Students are currently required to take it continuously throughout their public education, and it's almost universally reviled...though, like pretty much all human knowledge, I'm sure it can be interesting an enlightening when taught well.

History should be one of the most important AND most fun classes students take, but too often it's just an absurd pastiche of names and dates.

But really, History is stories. Our stories, our parent's stories, everyone's stories. These stories are crazy, they're awesome, they're the closest thing to true stories that we even have. We are pretty much hard wired to tell stories and to listen to stories, so in a way it's amazing that schools have managed to strip that vibrant energy out of History, and leave it a lifeless, dull husk. Honestly, it's mind-boggling.

Also, History is pretty important. I mean, it's a total cliche that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" but that's totally true. How many people who want to inject violence or threats of violence into our political process can tell you who Mohandas Gandhi was? Or how the Civil Rights movement in America achieved its goals? History is us, and we need to know it if we're going to do better tomorrow than we did yesterday.

[Surgo]

I'm still pissed off that I didn't major in Economics.

That was my most useful class ever even though the teacher was some Chicago nutjob -- in fact probably because of that, as following the chain of logic in my head made me realize how wrong that was.

[Gelare]

History should be one of the most important AND most fun classes students take, but too often it's just an absurd pastiche of names and dates.

But really, History is stories. Our stories, our parent's stories, everyone's stories. These stories are crazy, they're awesome, they're the closest thing to true stories that we even have. We are pretty much hard wired to tell stories and to listen to stories, so in a way it's amazing that schools have managed to strip that vibrant energy out of History, and leave it a lifeless, dull husk. Honestly, it's mind-boggling.

You know, you make a very good point. I've never liked history classes because they so often are just names and dates and events and memorization. Which are dumb. But there have been a few rare times when I've actually been told the story of how some history went down, and I soaked that stuff up. If history class were more like story time, I think it'd be really engaging.

[RobbyPants]

I will second that if we add Economics to the list.

I think a lot of the economics arguments I have been in personally would have been a lot less painful if people at least had a basic grasp of the subject.

That, and I feel that a lot of people would be financially better off if they really understood interest other than it being "something that makes money bigger".

This would be particularly nice if they could understand why interest on your investments is good, why investing early is good, why interest on your debt is bad, and why saving up for a purchase instead of borrowing is good.

They're all fairly simple concepts (late middle school, early high school) that way to many people ignore.

[Starmaker]

I have never had a decent "humanities" teacher since high school. See that quote in my sig? The sociology professor couldn't shut up about how being a very polite wage slave was The Ultimate Freedom (cue fanfares). When I asked her how come anarchy isn't the ultimate freedom, she replied, "Why can't you understand? Anarchy is the... Ultimate Unfreedom!"
But it got better! The history lady was a staunch supporter of Fomenko's bullshit (English link, have fun) and lamented about having to teach "traditional" history, and the cultural studies guy was "Pat Robertson marries the Time Cube guy and they have a baby"-level insane and hadn't said a word on cultural studies, which was perhaps fortunate.

Sociology comes close to being the science to answer the question on life, the universe and everything, and as a result it's very easy to screw up teaching it. You have to ensure that educational standards are not written by kooks, and that the teachers are not kooks, and that the people who monitor teachers are not kooks. The first thing you have to consider in any proposition, ever, is "how can it be abused". And oh boy can it. Not only nuclear powerplants need safety measures.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I have never had a decent "humanities" teacher since high school. See that quote in my sig? The sociology professor couldn't shut up about how being a very polite wage slave was The Ultimate Freedom (cue fanfares). When I asked her how come anarchy isn't the ultimate freedom, she replied, "Why can't you understand? Anarchy is the... Ultimate Unfreedom!"

One could make the argument that if you have to spend all your attending to your life needs, you aren't free, you're a slave to your biology. By being a wage slave, you aren't forced to attend to your own needs. However, it doesn't sound like the teacher made that argument from your post.

Frank's quote is a less verbose way of saying all that though.

[Parthenon]

First Aid. Why the fuck isn't it properly taught in schools?

The only thing I had was a one hour talk when I was about 12 or so basically warning us to not run straight in and get hurt ourselves, and to call someone with more training than us immediately.

---

Other things I'd like to see in school are basic DIY/housework: how to change a plug, how to use a screwdriver/hammer properly, how to unblock toilets or sinks, how to install a washing machine/dishwasher. That sort of thing.