What should a well-educated person know?

[Koko]

…that requires years of disciplined effort, like knowing how to play an instrument…

I'm sorry, but this really bothers me for some reason. Other than the piano (and like instruments), maybe even guitar (and the like), what instruments take years of effort? I learned how to play the clarinet in weeks and I'm the best compared to those who took band 8 and 9, while I only had band in grade five for the one year and jazz band in gr. 7. My friends and most others I know from elementary who also only had that one year are remarkable in playing their instruments. I mean, learning how to play a musical instrument is not that difficult or time-consuming if you are taught properly and practise regularly.

More on the topic of this thread, I find it very subjective*. Most everyone's opinion is different upon whom should be considered "well-educated" or not. If the posts prior this one -- especially the ones on the first page -- don't demonstrate how differently we all define "well-educated," what will? The views here are dependent upon the poster's POV, so I agree with vijay when he said he doesn't see the point of this thread.


*grazie Vijay! I get the two mixed up

[vijayjohn]

More on the topic of this thread, I find it very objective. Most everyone's opinion is different upon whom should be considered "well-educated" or not. If the posts prior this one -- especially the ones on the first page -- don't demonstrate how differently we all define "well-educated," what will? The views here are dependent upon the poster's POV, so I agree with vijay when he said he doesn't see the point of this thread.

Thanks, but I think you mean subjective then. And tbh, perhaps some of the definitions that have been mentioned here are more useful than others.

[Prowler]

"Should"? That depends on said person's field of study and work/career. I think everyone would be better off if they were naturally curious and willing to learn as much as possible even if it's not really beneficial for their career, but if someone tells me they don't need to know that Paris is in France because it isn't useful for their job, then I can't really argue with them. I do find it odd how is it possible for someone in their 20s who's finished high school to not know that, though. Makes me wonder what else they might be ignorant about.

My biggest failure is sucking at math and physics. But I've been trying to improve my skills on the former.

[הענט]

It's really difficult to say what a person should know. Many people don't need to know how their native languages work to speak it properly. Many people don't need to know more math, than they're going to use buying stuff or getting a loan. You can't make every learner of the Russian language feel compelled to read Anna Karenina, if they'd prefer to watch the Brigada crimi series instead. People need to know that Brazil is not in Africa, but they sure as hell don't need to know the name of its president, the number of inhabitants, the independence date, the language which is spoken there and the names of all the major cities. This very thread seems very elitist to me. I'd love to gather as much knowledge as possible in many different fields, but why should I care what my neighbor knows and what not?

[Ciarán12]

This very thread seems very elitist to me.

Does "well-educated" not suggest to you someone better educated than the average person (thus part of an intellectual elite)?

[vijayjohn]

Many people don't need to know how their native languages work to speak it properly.

No one does. Or did you mean they don't need to know that in order to speak it correctly according to some prescriptive standard?

This very thread seems very elitist to me.

Does "well-educated" not suggest to you someone better educated than the average person (thus part of an intellectual elite)?

I think most of the standards that have been described in this thread so far are a lot higher than that. I have no doubt that all the people on this thread who have said they don't consider themselves well-educated are still better educated than the average person.

[linguoboy]

The views here are dependent upon the poster's POV, so I agree with vijay when he said he doesn't see the point of this thread.

So there's no point to threads which are subjective in nature? Then I guess someone needs to prune out all the "prettiest/ugliest/most difficult/most useful/beigests/mintiest/etc. language" threads, don't they?

[Yasna]

I think this is just your scientism talking. Critical thinking has to more do with philosophy than anything.

Science is just a branch of philosophy that turned out to be very fruitful.

[Koko]

The views here are dependent upon the poster's POV, so I agree with vijay when he said he doesn't see the point of this thread.

So there's no point to threads which are subjective in nature? Then I guess someone needs to prune out all the "prettiest/ugliest/most difficult/most useful/beigests/mintiest/etc. language" threads, don't they?

Those are intended to be subjective. This thread is asking for one answer that we all agree on, which just can't happen because we all view "well-educated" differently — only a few agree with each other. If this thread's intent wasn't for the creator to find the definition of "well-educated," then I wouldn't have such a problem. But its title doesn't suggest this, the creator doesn't state the contrary of what is suggested by the title, and it's overall not intended to be a thread like those you mention.

[linguoboy]

Those are intended to be subjective. This thread is asking for one answer that we all agree on, which just can't happen because we all view "well-educated" differently — only a few agree with each other. If this thread's intent wasn't for the creator to find the definition of "well-educated," then I wouldn't have such a problem. But its title doesn't suggest this, the creator doesn't state the contrary of what is suggested by the title, and it's overall not intended to be a thread like those you mention.

You got all that from, "What do you think a well-educated person should know? Here's my opinion, and yes, I realize it's rather idealistic"?

[Koko]

Forgive my not noticing that: don't know how I missed that as it's the first thing said . I can be awfully stupid at times. The title is misleading still…

[vijayjohn]

You got all that from, "What do you think a well-educated person should know? Here's my opinion, and yes, I realize it's rather idealistic"?

No, from the title of the thread. But it's really not clear to some of us what the point of this thread is. Personally, to be honest, I think even the subjective threads about languages kind of run the risk of offending people (users or not) since people have very strong attachments to their languages. But at least there you can argue that people have all sorts of opinions about languages, and they aren't necessarily meant to imply anything about the people who speak them; anyway, this is a forum for language-learners. This thread, however, is necessarily asking for opinions about people, specifically what they need to know in order to be classified as part of some particular group ("well-educated" people), and I at least am rather concerned that the risk of offending people as a result is that much greater.

It looks like we don't even all understand the question the same way. Are we asking what the ideal educational system should effectively teach children? Or an adequate one? Are we asking what literally everyone should know? Is this simply a thought experiment of the sort Varislintu proposed, so that we're asking something more like what a 19th-century upper-class white British person would have had to know? Or what? It looks like pretty much all of these issues have been mentioned on this thread.

[Yasna]

Another argument is the arbitrary level of detailness and coverage of a subject that they choose at school. When talking about maths in particular (I choose maths because I'm a maths major), why stopping on calculus at highschool? Calculus is a 17th century discovery. There were a lot more groundbreaking and fundamental discoveries after calculus. The whole body of differential and algebraic geometry is absolutely ignored (the recently proved Poincare conjecture belongs to that area), abstract algebra is only marginally touched etc.

So stopping on calculus doesn't make any sense really. School curriculum could just as well be limited with Ancient Greek discoveries.

I think it comes down to applications. Sure differential geometry has some applications in electromagnetism and relativity, but it builds on calculus, and is not as crucial for understanding the fundamentals of physics as calculus itself is.

But it's really not clear to some of us what the point of this thread is.

To have a stimulating discussion on education.

This thread, however, is necessarily asking for opinions about people, specifically what they need to know in order to be classified as part of some particular group ("well-educated" people), and I at least am rather concerned that the risk of offending people as a result is that much greater.

You're being excessively negative. Someone could just as well feel motivated by this discussion to learn more (I was motivated by voron's post to learn more about differential geometry).

Otherwise let's avoid talking about cooking, because it might offend people who are sub-par cooks. Oh, and let's make it taboo to discuss parenting, because people who aren't the greatest parents might take it the wrong way.

It looks like we don't even all understand the question the same way. Are we asking what the ideal educational system should effectively teach children? Or an adequate one? Are we asking what literally everyone should know? Is this simply a thought experiment of the sort Varislintu proposed, so that we're asking something more like what a 19th-century upper-class white British person would have had to know? Or what? It looks like pretty much all of these issues have been mentioned on this thread.

As I mentioned in the OP, I was approaching the question from the perspective of education as a life-long pursuit, but I see nothing wrong in thinking about the question in the context of school education.

[vijayjohn]

But it's really not clear to some of us what the point of this thread is.

To have a stimulating discussion on education.

Which can mean pretty much anything you want it to.

You're being excessively negative.

No need for an ad hominem here. Just because I don't agree that this thread was a great idea doesn't mean I'm being excessively negative. Sure, I could be wrong in thinking that it wasn't, but if I don't express what concerns me and nobody addresses those concerns, then of course I'm going to keep having them.

Someone could just as well feel motivated by this discussion to learn more (I was motivated by voron's post to learn more about differential geometry).

Not "just as well," because the more vague the opening question is, the more diverse the answers will be, and the less likely it is that you'll find an answer that has something in common with yours. Someone can feel motivated when they agree that some particular thing is important. In your case, you already said that you think a well-educated person should know geometry (among other things), and differential geometry is part of geometry, so it's hardly a surprise that you feel motivated to learn more about it.

Otherwise let's avoid talking about cooking, because it might offend people who are sub-par cooks. Oh, and let's make it taboo to discuss parenting, because people who aren't the greatest parents might take it the wrong way.

There's a big difference between talking broadly about a topic and asking what people should know about it (or as a result of pursuing it). Talking about cooking is not the same thing as asking "what should everybody be able to cook?" Talking about parenting is not the same thing as asking "what is the best way to raise a child?" Talking about education is not the same thing as asking "what should a well-educated person know?"

As I mentioned in the OP, I was approaching the question from the perspective of education as a life-long pursuit, but I see nothing wrong in thinking about the question in the context of school education.

Which again is too vague (although at least a little more specific than "a stimulating discussion on education," so thanks). Whose education are you talking about, and what exactly do you mean by "from the perspective of education as a life-long pursuit"? You mean what people (whichever people you're thinking of) should learn before they die? What they should dedicate their whole lives to learning? Or what? And again, if we're "thinking about the question in the context of school education," what kind of educational system are we talking about - an ideal one or an adequate one?

[Yasna]

In your case, you already said that you think a well-educated person should know geometry (among other things), and differential geometry is part of geometry, so it's hardly a surprise that you feel motivated to learn more about it.

That's a non sequitur. I'm pretty sure most people who have participated in this thread think a well-educated person should know geometry. And I'm also pretty sure most people in this thread didn't feel motivated to learn about differential geometry after voron mentioned it.

Talking about cooking is not the same thing as asking "what should everybody be able to cook?" Talking about parenting is not the same thing as asking "what is the best way to raise a child?"

Those would be interesting threads. I better not start them though lest someone be offended by them.

Which again is too vague (although at least a little more specific than "a stimulating discussion on education," so thanks). Whose education are you talking about, and what exactly do you mean by "from the perspective of education as a life-long pursuit"? You mean what people (whichever people you're thinking of) should learn before they die? What they should dedicate their whole lives to learning? Or what? And again, if we're "thinking about the question in the context of school education," what kind of educational system are we talking about - an ideal one or an adequate one?

........

I find going back and forth on semantics and interpretations tedious, exhausting, and rarely worth the effort. So let me just end with a friendly reminder that you don't have to continue reading this thread if you find it too offensive, vague, and god knows what else. Have a nice day.

[הענט]

How many bones are there in a cervical vertebrae? Is the English horn a woodwind or a brass instrument? Can you name all the Chinese dynasties? If not, then you're an idiot. That's basically what this thread implies. At first I wanted to learn a multitude of languages, but now I know it's not only impossible, it would be a waste of my time also. Even achieving a basic conversational level in 30 languages is not worth it, so now I've tuned down a bit and I want to know at most 9 languages (advanced to native fluency). I decided to take this route, because I'd like to learn some other skills I find useful and would love to study some difficult non-linguistic subject. Because when I'm 40 or 50, I will have found it much useful to know a good deal of say quantum physics, than to make a small talk in Lao or Hmong... Now this thread is hyper-subjective and it only shows how shallow minded we are, insinuating that every person with a higher IQ than 120 should know what we basically regard as fundamental illustration of knowledge or intelligence, leaving out the common sense altogether. I know a guy who remembers a lot of data, but has hard time unlocking his door, turning the key counter-clockwise, thus locking it...

[mōdgethanc]

Science is just a branch of philosophy that turned out to be very fruitful.

Sure, if you equivocate on the meaning of "philosophy" as both an academic field and as knowledge in general. The point is that they're very different fields now and that in this thread, you've shown a clear bias towards mathematical sciences and other things you personally think are important rather than what might be useful to other people. For example, as IpseDixit said, you glossed over art, religion and most of the social sciences (except, of course, economics) - why? I get the strong impression that you think anything that isn't math-heavy or related to world history is useless.

[Yasna]

Sure, if you equivocate on the meaning of "philosophy" as both an academic field and as knowledge in general. The point is that they're very different fields now and that in this thread, you've shown a clear bias towards mathematical sciences and other things you personally think are important rather than what might be useful to other people. For example, as IpseDixit said, you glossed over art, religion and most of the social sciences (except, of course, economics) - why? I get the strong impression that you think anything that isn't math-heavy or related to world history is useless.

You're completely wrong of course. Just because I didn't include art or religion in my list hardly means I think they are useless to know about. In fact I would expect any worthwhile textbook on world history (which I did include) to devote some space to the world's major religions.

Not quite sure what you're trying to get at with this talk of importance. If you are suggesting that I included everything that is of personal importance to me , and left out everything that is not of personal importance to me, that's untrue. Knowing Persian is of great personal importance to me, but of course I didn't include it in my list.

[mōdgethanc]

You're completely wrong of course. Just because I didn't include art or religion in my list hardly means I think they are useless to know about. In fact I would expect any worthwhile textbook on world history (which I did include) to devote some space to the world's major religions.

Then you should've included them in your post, shouldn't you? If you didn't, to me that implies you didn't find them as worthy of inclusion.

What about social sciences that aren't economics or history? Where do psychology, sociology, anthropology fit in? Are they as important as engineering? Or are they not quantifiable enough?

Not quite sure what you're trying to get at with this talk of importance. If you are suggesting that I included everything that is of personal importance to me , and left out everything that is not of personal importance to me, that's untrue. Knowing Persian is of great personal importance to me, but of course I didn't include it in my list.

That's not what I was implying. My point is that your idea of what is important seems to be biased towards certain subjects, which happen to be things that interest you. It's more of an implicit bias, perhaps a subconscious one.

[IpseDixit]

You're completely wrong of course. Just because I didn't include ART or religion in my list hardly means I THINK they are useless to know about. In fact I would expect any worthwhile textbook on world history (which I did include) to devote some space to the WORLD'S major religions.

If you think that world religions deserve just some space in a world history textbook, well, that actually confirms our suspects.

Not quite sure what you're trying to get at with this talk of importance. If you are suggesting that I included everything that is of PERSONAL importance to me , and left out everything that is not of personal importance to me, that's untrue. Knowing Persian is of great personal importance to me, but of course I didn't include it in my list.

No. We were wondering whether all the things in your list are of personal importance to you, which is a very different thing from saying that you included everything that is of personal importance to you in the list.