Gene wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:45:18 -0400, Jim wrote:

H the K wrote:
Gene wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:02:27 -0400, NotNow penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|Most are in engineering, funny, though, NONE are in liberal arts!
|
|http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/degrees.asp

None, I suspect, have EVER been in liberal arts. But, then, how
civilized would we be without grammar, rhetoric, logic, geometry,
arithmetic, music, or astronomy?


An awful lot of us liberal arts graduates didn't go to college to learn
a trade.
Obviously. Even the basket weaving courses were too tough for some of
you deep thinkers.

I went, on my 14th birthday, to get a worker's permit..... and until I
was in my 40's worked at least 2 jobs at any one given time. I'm down
to only one, now....

I was capable and actively involved in working a trade before I got my
first liberal arts degree.... you don't have to be a racket scientist
to earn a wage.

A good education serves to "polish and adorn the mind." Something a
lot of posters here certainly don't seem to value......

Don't belittle a classical education until you have one.....


Hmmm. I also got a work permit at the age of 14. The state allowed kids
to work if they were doing ok in school and the work was "light." No
manufacturing jobs or jobs running serious machinery. I think you had to
be either 16 or maybe 18 for heavier work.

Before he started his own business, my father was the ad manager for a
chain of small stores his uncle owned. Before that, he got a degree in
art. Figure painting was his lifelong avocation. Just before WWII, he
opened a machine shop and soon after the war broke out, he got contracts
from a brass company in Waterbury to turn out shell casings. As soon as
the war was over, he started up a motorcycle, scooter, and boat
business, which he ran for some 30 years.

Anyway, when it became time for me to go to college, he encouraged me to
stick with the liberal arts and "learn how to think." I followed his
advice. He got me some pretty good summertime jobs that required manual
labor, and I was glad for them and for the experiences.

I never regretted getting a formal classical education.

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:05:38 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:02:27 -0400, NotNow penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|Most are in engineering, funny, though, NONE are in liberal arts!
|
|http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/degrees.asp

None, I suspect, have EVER been in liberal arts. But, then, how
civilized would we be without grammar, rhetoric, logic, geometry,
arithmetic, music, or astronomy?

Here's an interesting conundrum sparked by this thread and something I
was reading earlier this evening.

Eratosthenes was a Greek mathematician, poet, geographer, astronomer
and archivist being Chief Librarian of the Great Library of
Alexandria. Among other things, he invented the armillary sphere
(spherical astrolabe), wrote an algorithm for finding prime numbers up
to about 12,000,000 or thereabouts, calculated the circumference of
the Earth with 99% accuracy using nothing but sticks, a guy to walk
and measure the distance from Alexandria to Syene and basic geometry,
calculated the exact axis tilt of the Earth, and while his calculation
of distance to the Moon was off by about 20% (which was due to
refraction error of the atmosphere), he nailed the distance to the Sun
quite accurately, created an incredibly accurate map of the "world" as
it was known then, invented scientific chronology and wrote
extensively about the political, social and scientific events of his
time.

He was born in what is now Libya about 240 BC and did all of that
without a "university" or "college" education.

I've always been of the opinion that "education" is really curiosity
and that formal education is merely a process by which information is
presented in ways that provide some order to the process and is not
essential for one to be "educated". Some of the smartest people I've
ever dealt with have high school educations, but are well and widely
read, have sound knowledge of basic mathematics (arithmetic, geometry
and trigonometry) and an insatiable curiosity about the world the
surrounds them and what goes on in it.

There's an older woman here in town, 98 years young, who amassed a
huge fortune over the years by changing with the times, starting off
as a field hand for her father's farm and ending up owning one of the
manufacturing plants in Putnam which makes different kinds of line,
binding materials, threading machinery and the like. She was taught to
read the King James Bible and basic arithmetic by counting sheep,
cows, bales of hay, etc., and took off from there - not even an
elementary school education.

Consider this - Steve Jobs never graduated from Reed College only
spending one semester there. Wozniak dropped out of UC, Berkely after
his Freshman year, Gates dropped out of Harvard.

It's true even in the arts - Ansel Adams and Edward Weston never
attened institutes of higher "education", but became responsible for a
revolution in photography. A lot of the more famous artists and
painters like Georgia O'Keeffe didn't have a lot of formal art
education. Muscians much the same - Thelonious Monk, Artie Tatum,
etc., were self taught.

It's really a matter of what you are interested in and how much
curiosity you have that give credence to being "educated" - the formal
stuff, not so much.

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

I've always been of the opinion that "education" is really curiosity
and that formal education is merely a process by which information is
presented in ways that provide some order to the process and is not
essential for one to be "educated". Some of the smartest people I've
ever dealt with have high school educations, but are well and widely
read, have sound knowledge of basic mathematics (arithmetic, geometry
and trigonometry) and an insatiable curiosity about the world the
surrounds them and what goes on in it.


A good formal education is an indicator for many of intellectual
curiosity. It is much more than "merely a process."

While no one can deny the intellectual and worldly success of the
self-taught in many fields, the fact is that a college degree is at the
very least a rough indicator that its "owner" had enough self-discipline
to stick with a course of study, and satisfy the intellectual
requirements and standards for graduation.

At its best, a good formal liberal arts education forces you to think
way outside the box, and exposes you to ideas and people whose
backgrounds and thoughts are very different from yours.

If you are self-taught, *you* are the individual in charge of
determining what you expose yourself to during the process of learning.
If you go the formal route, there are many who can guide you, as
teachers, as colleagues, as fellow students, as group experiences.

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:33:08 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

I've always been of the opinion that "education" is really curiosity
and that formal education is merely a process by which information is
presented in ways that provide some order to the process and is not
essential for one to be "educated". Some of the smartest people I've
ever dealt with have high school educations, but are well and widely
read, have sound knowledge of basic mathematics (arithmetic, geometry
and trigonometry) and an insatiable curiosity about the world the
surrounds them and what goes on in it.


A good formal education is an indicator for many of intellectual
curiosity. It is much more than "merely a process."

While no one can deny the intellectual and worldly success of the
self-taught in many fields, the fact is that a college degree is at the
very least a rough indicator that its "owner" had enough self-discipline
to stick with a course of study, and satisfy the intellectual
requirements and standards for graduation.

At its best, a good formal liberal arts education forces you to think
way outside the box, and exposes you to ideas and people whose
backgrounds and thoughts are very different from yours.

If you are self-taught, *you* are the individual in charge of
determining what you expose yourself to during the process of learning.
If you go the formal route, there are many who can guide you, as
teachers, as colleagues, as fellow students, as group experiences.

As you said, learning the wide scope of different world/cultural
experience, which is always formatted into a liberal arts curriculum
to some degree, is the important aspect.
What any individual derives from such an education it is highly
individual and varied.
My view is that if you can't widely analogize in the end, it's
somewhat of a failure. The ultimate goal is to come to an
understanding of a universal consciousness, if only momentarily.
It is not forgotten.
This always involves what we can call a Zen element, as an easily and
fairly widely "understood" term for that type of understanding.
Though some allowances can be made for one's physical appearance and
verbal skills, a good measure of success in your liberal arts
education is how well you can apply what you've learned toward scoring
with hot smart chicks.
Of course if you forego the education, money works just as well.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:33:08 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

I've always been of the opinion that "education" is really curiosity
and that formal education is merely a process by which information is
presented in ways that provide some order to the process and is not
essential for one to be "educated". Some of the smartest people I've
ever dealt with have high school educations, but are well and widely
read, have sound knowledge of basic mathematics (arithmetic, geometry
and trigonometry) and an insatiable curiosity about the world the
surrounds them and what goes on in it.

A good formal education is an indicator for many of intellectual
curiosity. It is much more than "merely a process."

While no one can deny the intellectual and worldly success of the
self-taught in many fields, the fact is that a college degree is at the
very least a rough indicator that its "owner" had enough self-discipline
to stick with a course of study, and satisfy the intellectual
requirements and standards for graduation.

At its best, a good formal liberal arts education forces you to think
way outside the box, and exposes you to ideas and people whose
backgrounds and thoughts are very different from yours.

If you are self-taught, *you* are the individual in charge of
determining what you expose yourself to during the process of learning.
If you go the formal route, there are many who can guide you, as
teachers, as colleagues, as fellow students, as group experiences.

As you said, learning the wide scope of different world/cultural
experience, which is always formatted into a liberal arts curriculum
to some degree, is the important aspect.
What any individual derives from such an education it is highly
individual and varied.
My view is that if you can't widely analogize in the end, it's
somewhat of a failure. The ultimate goal is to come to an
understanding of a universal consciousness, if only momentarily.
It is not forgotten.
This always involves what we can call a Zen element, as an easily and
fairly widely "understood" term for that type of understanding.
Though some allowances can be made for one's physical appearance and
verbal skills, a good measure of success in your liberal arts
education is how well you can apply what you've learned toward scoring
with hot smart chicks.
Of course if you forego the education, money works just as well.

--Vic



Woody Guthrie had that understanding of universal consciousness, the
night he saw the movie "The Grapes of Wrath."

His song "Tom Joad" has the following lines:

"Ever'body might be just one big soul,
Well it looks that a-way to me.
Everywhere that you look, in the day or night,
That's where I'm a-gonna be, Ma,
That's where I'm a-gonna be.

"Wherever little children are hungry and cry,
Wherever people ain't free.
Wherever men are fightin' for their rights,
That's where I'm a-gonna be, Ma.
That's where I'm a-gonna be."


The book, the movie, and the song have a lot to say to Americans today,
especially as more and more are "tractored out by the Cats."

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:39:31 -0400, H the K
wrote:



Woody Guthrie had that understanding of universal consciousness, the
night he saw the movie "The Grapes of Wrath."

His song "Tom Joad" has the following lines:

"Ever'body might be just one big soul,
Well it looks that a-way to me.
Everywhere that you look, in the day or night,
That's where I'm a-gonna be, Ma,
That's where I'm a-gonna be.

"Wherever little children are hungry and cry,
Wherever people ain't free.
Wherever men are fightin' for their rights,
That's where I'm a-gonna be, Ma.
That's where I'm a-gonna be."


The book, the movie, and the song have a lot to say to Americans today,
especially as more and more are "tractored out by the Cats."

That reminds me I saw part of a piece on Lou Dobbs this week where
Anglos were going to work picking fruit because of the economy.
Didn't get all the details.
Every once in a while you run across somebody with universal
consciousness. They have an aura. Had it for a while myself in
spurts, but couldn't maintain it. 'Course, might be fooling myself.
Charisma is used sometimes, but I think that's different and doesn't
run as deep.
When my eldest son was a tot he wouldn't be away from my pants or his
ma's skirt.
I mean NOBODY got even close to him without him throwing a fit.
We visited a workmate one evening and the workmate's nephew was there.
Right when we walked into the room the nephew, a lanky guy of about 30
with a toothy smile, smiled at Luke and opened his arms. Luke ran
right into those arms. Never saw anything like it.
But I could feel this guy's aura. He had something.
Lots of things we don't understand, or don't work to understand.
Maybe more whiskey would help. Not sure.

--Vic

Gene wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:23:53 -0400, Jim wrote:

Gene wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:45:18 -0400, Jim wrote:

H the K wrote:
Gene wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:02:27 -0400, NotNow penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|Most are in engineering, funny, though, NONE are in liberal arts!
|
|http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/degrees.asp

None, I suspect, have EVER been in liberal arts. But, then, how
civilized would we be without grammar, rhetoric, logic, geometry,
arithmetic, music, or astronomy?

An awful lot of us liberal arts graduates didn't go to college to learn
a trade.
Obviously. Even the basket weaving courses were too tough for some of
you deep thinkers.
I went, on my 14th birthday, to get a worker's permit..... and until I
was in my 40's worked at least 2 jobs at any one given time. I'm down
to only one, now....

I was capable and actively involved in working a trade before I got my
first liberal arts degree.... you don't have to be a racket scientist
to earn a wage.

A good education serves to "polish and adorn the mind." Something a
lot of posters here certainly don't seem to value......

Don't belittle a classical education until you have one.....
So you're a racket scientist eh. Well that don't impress me much.

What? I can't hear you!

You're good at your job, then!!

On 3-Sep-2009, NotNow wrote:

Most are in engineering, funny, though, NONE are in liberal arts!

And thankfully, none of those skills are needed in the U.S. anymore!

Everything we want comes from the gubment.

Steve wrote:
On 3-Sep-2009, NotNow wrote:

Most are in engineering, funny, though, NONE are in liberal arts!

And thankfully, none of those skills are needed in the U.S. anymore!

Everything we want comes from the gubment.


If that is the case, you should find out of the "gubment" will loan you
a brain.

On 4-Sep-2009, H the K wrote:

And thankfully, none of those skills are needed in the U.S. anymore!

Everything we want comes from the gubment.


If that is the case, you should find out of the "gubment" will loan you
a brain.

Been asleep for 25 years??