Texas, Stay Classy

  • Thread starter Thread starter mover
  • Start date Start date
I had a couple of professors who were editors. AFAIK, they never looked at any source data. If the article made sense and the methodology sounded ok, they would approve it.
 
Its not about the curriculum, its about the details of the events and the connotations placed upon them.

It shouldn't be up to a bunch of politically elected or appointed members of a board of "education" to even discuss the matter. It should be a collaboration of renowned academia institutions from around the world.
 
For history?
One of the req's was U.S. History for a gen ed.
No opting out with AP credit either

U.S. History doesn't really change all that much.
 
Since you brought it up, it becomes relevant. However, if it wasn't relevant originally, why did you mention it in the first place?
 
I love the "you didnt go to a good college" lines being thrown around. Universities as a whole are probably the largest death knell for the destruction of wisdom in this modern age.
 
I agree except...the final product should be subject to the agreement of the people paying the bill...the taxpayers. And seemingly that is what we have here. I may not agree with all the things they want, but I wouldn't have agreed with everything in the old textbooks either.
 
How is it a good thing to make decisions 'in the dark'? Of course everyone doesn't need to go. Perpetuating that as a counter-standard is just another way of making the same mistake.
 
Here's what I think about this whole boondoggle

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/history_and_ideology_in_textbo.html
 
Did the point actually escape you?


Even if you passed US history with a D- in high school, I don't see any reason why that would have any bearing whatsoever regarding your performance in college. Your college curriculum is not your high school curriculum. If you're going to a college that doesn't suck, then your courses will one way or another provide you with the information needed to pass the course.
 
Well unless you really just didn't give a shit, how do you get a D- in American (public school) history? It's declaration revolution war immigration Harriet Tubman war war communists war war hippies Star Wars tear down that wall war bubble war bubble war war bubble first black president.

If you just focus on the wars, that's a C.
 
Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (crackberry 9000: BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.304 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

Were the changes to the school curriculum historically accurate? No
Why would anyone support it then? Fuck hippies
 
Stating that we have such a separation without explaining it fully, and initially, is not a disservice. It's a starting point. The follow-up is 'why'. It's a logical progression from 'there is' to 'why there is'. This doesn't always work either, as we seem to be expanding what we know all the time.



Every 'side' does this. Yay for the observation and everything, but if you stop there, and take simply an accusatory approach, then you are neglecting the 'why' you're advocating in the paragraph above.

Why does the body politic push talking points and ideology rather than history?
 
And TX is revising the curriculum to expand the discussion. I don't think this is a problem.



Good question. However as a rule, the left is a bigger culprit. It was the left that coined the term "wooden language," afterall
 
So is it customary for editors to get access to source data? Generally researchers are not keen on giving it out. Besides, depending on what the data is, you would never be able to tell anyway- I could make up numbers as I go along.
 
What is Texas expanding? Making things up is not an expansion, it's a rejection of the process used to build a repository of quality over quantity.

Counter-point terms: elitist, unpatriotic, traitor, 'liberal disease'. There isn't a 'worse' side until you get to a specific issue, which really invalidates the idea of 'sides' as a basis for evaluation of much beyond the reaction to them.
 
Back
Top