Fundie Education Standards

[Alecto]

I've been thinking about this some more and I realize there are are several things that bother me about the original quote that I posted.

1. The assumption that science is superior to all other academic disciplines. I realize that these days that's where the money/jobs/whatever are, but I think this comes down to different views of what education should be. I was taught that one's primary consideration in picking a college major should be whether it's something you enjoy and would be excited to spend four (or more) years studying. I think people assume that if the Duggers are/were properly educated they would all be out there studying science, and maybe they would, but it's also possible that, given the chance, they would end up as 19 English and philosophy majors. I'm not against science, for those who enjoy it, but it's not for everybody and it's not "better" than anything else. I probably know about as much Biology as the average Duggar. That does not make me stupid.

The issue is simply this - it's not that Science is more important, but that most Creationist, Christian homeschoolers completely ignore large parts of scientific education. A good science education isn't about knowing the parts of a cell or the types of rocks, but learning critical thinking skills and the ability to evaluate a scientific claim.

2. The assumption that believing in YEC rules out the study of all science. I'm not all that scientifically inclined (see above), but I think you could learn at least the basics of, say, Chemistry, without YEC beliefs being a problem. I'm thinking back to the Online Chemistry for Dunderheads that I took last summer and I don't recall anything about evolution or the age of the earth coming up. Granted, that was the very basic of basic classes, but it would be better than nothing.

Actually, being a YEC does inhibit study of other areas of science. A belief in YEC means you reject basic principles of chemistry (elemental decay), geology, biology, and most other sciences. Because YEC says many scientific principles are wrong or lies, it's hard to be successful in scientific fields and also reject science.

3. The assumption that a person is educationally lacking if they don't fit certain academic standards. One of my friends is a diesel mechanic. He would probably have a hard time writing a research paper, on any topic, but he can talk your ears off about the ins and outs of engines, and he enjoys what he does. He did have to go to some sort of school or training in order to become a diesel mechanic, but it definitely wasn't the same thing as college. The Duggars could all be quite successful without ever going to a traditional four-year college.

I certainly agree no one needs a four year education to be successful. We need more skilled workers - plumbers, electricians, mechanics, ect. However, a Gothardesque world view says that all college is evil - including technical training.

I do agree that these Gothardesque homeschooled kids are missing out on a lot. Writing a research paper isn't just about learning about a topic, but developing critical thinking and the ability to figure out what is and isn't a credible source for information. That, to me, is the biggest educational crime committed against these kids. They are lead to believe that if it didn't come from the Bible or the writings of their particular fundie subsect, it's worldly and poisoned, and not to be trusted, and they never learn to look at things for themselves, and examine them for the truth.

[Black Aliss]

Even the best education cannot possibly cover everything

No, of course not. The best education teaches you how to learn about everything you need to know. "Everything" can vary between individuals, but the basics remain constant. IOW, how to do research, how to tell the difference between a credible source and BS, how to use and interpret primary sources, recognizing how cultural differences can skew interpretations of even the best sources critical thinking, how to break a big, seemingly unsolvable problem down into little managable problems, how to measure and how to apply those measurements, how to evaluate what you've done and be able to see where you got off track. I could turn this into a teal deer because good education is a subject I'm passionate about.

[nutella addict]

O Latin, how well you just put all of that into words!

1) Despite loving math and acing AP Calc at the age of 16, I went into the Humanities too, and I get so much crap from science majors because I was an English/Linguistics major and since Linguistics doesn't have a lab coat it's not "science". I felt better when they struggled to write a short paper, but man did the idea that science is king tick me off. I've forgotten most math/science now but that doesn't make anyone stupid, I'm sure you're brilliant at what you do study. But I think the point is that you actually are studying, and not just filling in Wisdom booklets. That said, I bet one of the middle Duggars could quote more Scripture than me, but their education is just so restricted. I think you should have a chance to learn a variety of subjects before limiting your education in any way. Let them learn a few other things, then focus solely on the Bible and practical skills, if that's what they want to do. Does that make sense?

2) I hope I didn't imply that YEC ruled out all science. I agree there are definitely some sciences that could be learned. I just wonder about whether or not they'd accept any of the scientific facts if they weren't mentioned in the Bible, or if they're not quite that extreme. And what about some of the prevalent 'scientific' myths taught by Gothard? I mean, for example one of the girls is studying to be a midwife, which should include some medical science. However, what about their evidence-less insistence that b/c pills cause miscarriages? How would the girls reconcile this idea with what they learn? What if they take psychology and find out that being gay isn't a choice? Or study animal reproduction (whatever major that would be under) and find out there are homosexual animals? What if they study environmental science and have to learn about global warming/climate change? I don't think their beliefs exclude all science, but I do think some parts of a lot of sciences would conflict with what they're taught to believe. I mean, I suppose they could just learn it, not believe it, and move on, but I'm unsure of how that would work. Or they could avoid those parts of science, Lord knows I've only had basic chemistry as well, and that would be fine, definitely better than nothing, but I'd rather they at least have a choice.

3) I'm in grad school, my dad left school after O-levels (now GCSEs) and did some night-school through his work, my mom got a 2-year degree. I know some, possibly most, people just aren't interested in or made for college, and that's totally fine. I think the problem people have with the Duggars is that it's CollegePlus or nothing, there isn't much of a choice. That's as bad as forcing people into college who don't want to go, and I think the limits they put on them, especially the girls, is basically your parents picking your major for you. My parents helped me decide when I asked them their opinions, but they let *me* decide. The Duggars don't need to go to a traditional 4-year university, but it would be nice if they were allowed to if they're interested. Josh wanted marriage & babies (read: sex), and he doesn't seem to be super interested in actually going to college, but he might be perfectly fine depending on how the car lot goes. But maybe Josiah wants to go study acting. I doubt that's a major offered in CollegePlus. I think people keep forgetting that the problem isn't that they aren't all going to a 4-year accredited university, but the fact that they don't really have a choice to go or not go.

Also, note: Not sending any children to college - no need to save up, thus can afford tons of children. If you factor in $20k-50k/year x 4 years per child - they'd all be broke, and the kids would never be debt free. So I can see how not going away to college is part of the lots of babies + no debt ideals. And yes, I know there are scholarships and that community colleges are cheaper and all that, but I couldn't imagine trying to put 19 kids through college unless I won the lottery at least once.

[O Latin]

That is exactly, word for word, what Gothard teaches. That there is no need for college because you can be successful without it. That philosophy really hasn't worked out too well for most ATI graduates. Very few have been able to be successful without some education or at least the skills to get an education.

It's true, though. I believe that only about 25% of the adult population in the U.S. has a bachelor's degree or higher, but I would bet that more than 25% consider themselves reasonably successful. That's not to say that we shouldn't encourage more people to get more education. I think more education is almost always a good thing. But the idea that if you don't go to a traditional four-year college you will end up a miserable failure is absolutely not true.

xDreamerx, now that I think about it, I have probably written papers with all of those things (except an abstract, never done one of those), I've just heard them called different things. But cover/title pages, bibliographies, citations, page numbers in the right place, that's all formatting stuff. A monkey could do that. I'd be more worried about someone's ability to express and organize their thoughts clearly and logically, and believe me that's a problem that exists waaaaayyyyyy beyond fundieland.

[tinuviel]

O Latin, I think the Duggars could be successful at making money for themselves and their families, but it is a pity that they're probably not learning the critical thinking/evaluating skills that they might have honed in a more mainstream college setting. The critical thinking I've learned as a humanities student has helped me to figure out a lot about myself, my upbringing and my beliefs. The result is that I've become more confident and independent and more able to stand up for myself when things are awry. There's a hell of a lot to be said for being able to analyse and critically evaluate ideas and situations. I don't think you *have* to go to college to learn this kind of critical thinking, but it does help, particularly if you've been raised never to ask questions as the Duggars have.

[antifundie]

I also think that the emphasis on math and science (as a major in college) isn't for everybody--and I think the humanities are just as important.

I do think that the basics of math and science are something that need to be learned by everyone (i.e., in high school and before)--I don't have a great understanding of math and science, and so I usually have to check things that should be basic. Once, when I was watching The Big Bang Theory, they mentioned how stars came to be, and I realized all I knew about stars was that "God" put them there. Um, yeah...not exactly science.

When I did go to college, I took a human biology class, which was really interesting. We learned a bit about evolution, and even though at the time I didn't believe in it, I still saw the value of learning "the other side." I mean, even if it's not true, what's wrong with looking at the proof, the evidence and coming to your own conclusion?

I know fundies are afraid of that, but what's even worse, is that many homeschool-type fundies think they know logic, and that they can see through an argument, but they can't. They can throw around things like "epistemologically self-conscious" but don't realize the basics of logical fallacy.

In fact, when I learned in college that an argument presented as A: allowing gay people to marry will eventually lead to B: allowing people to marry their dog, and then C: their child, therefore A-->C, was in fact a slippery slope fallacy? I was STUNNED. Pretty much everything I had learned about logic and critical thinking was based on slippery slope arguments.

For example, because A: Failure to believe in Genesis means B: you don't believe in God which means C: you'll think murder is ok--yeah, that was the kind of reasoning I heard in church ALL THE TIME. But it's wrong, and it's not a well-formed argument.

[Cassandra]

My husband is a college prof (science), too, and he spends a lot of time teaching his students how to write papers. That's how he learned, too--definitely not in high school. Unfortunately, he also has to spend a lot of time teaching them how to write coherently as well, not just in the proper form. And he's the evil professor that forces them to learn to use LATEX for their paper formatting. They bitch and moan, but by the end they always get why he wants this. (And really it's not hard, especially if you've ever done any html.) I am thankful for the English education I had in public school. I had no difficulties with papers when I got to college, and I still often proofread my husband's work before he submits it (even though the science is incomprehensible to this musician...)

I think I'd be more worried about their lack of knowledge and imagination than I would about forming an abstract. That can be taught, but once the window on critical thought and imagination is painted shut, it can be pretty tough to reopen it.

Er...maybe this is because I go to a huge school and it's super competitive just based on numbers alone, and overall the school doesn't really put up with stragglers, but I've never had to have a professor teach me how to write a paper. I've been told 'Hey here's the format for this one obscure style I like", but not how to write a paper. Now, we do have resources for students who need help writing papers, but I've never had a professor who didn't feel that instruction on how to write a paper was a waste of class time.

I've been writing research papers since the 8th grade. (Here comes an unpopular opinion) If you can't write a basic 5 page research paper upon your entry into college then you need to take a remedial English course.

[Alecto]

If you can't write a basic 5 page research paper upon your entry into college then you need to take a remedial English course.

A-freaking-Men.

I am absolutely flabbergasted that in one of my graduate level courses the prof sent out not one, but TWO emails to the class because students were not citing sources in their weekly essays.

[nutella addict]

A-freaking-Men.

I am absolutely flabbergasted that in one of my graduate level courses the prof sent out not one, but TWO emails to the class because students were not citing sources in their weekly essays.

I'm right there with you guys, my school didn't put up with that stuff either. At best, we got a list of the prof's pet peeves in essays and their citation requirements. I wrote my first "research paper" in the 3rd grade although I wouldn't say we did any real independent ones until middle school, just that one was to get us used to taking notes on notecards (a habit I never picked up). By high school it was helping us write *better* papers, not the basics, although I think in in the basic or just CP (college prep) classes it was different, but I was in Honors/AP so I'm not sure. My university had a writing centre if you needed help, and that was that. But then it was also a top university and tough to get into (trying not to brag, honestly, it's just relevant), so I guess they had a reason/excuse not to put up with anyone who didn't already know these things, and it was a huge one besides, so profs didn't have time to put into teaching the basics of paper-writing.

[O Latin]

Isn't English 101 usually the "how to write a paper" class (I had a high enough SAT score that I didn't have to take it)? I wrote a few papers in high school, but it was usually in English class, so the focus was more on literary analysis that research (not that there's anything wrong with literary analysis, of course). Most of the history I took in high school was AP and they didn't teach us anything that wasn't on the AP test, so we did some essay writing, but it was of the timed, write-down-everything-you-can-think-of-as-fast-as-possible variety, no research papers.

I had only ever written MLA papers until last fall when one of my profs wanted our term papers in Chicago style. This was an upper division class so he definitely wasn't going to hold our hands through writing it. He okayed our topics, told us the due date and the number of sources he wanted us to use, and that was that. I figured out Chicago myself, with a little bit of help from Professor Google. I guess I sometimes underestimate the difficulty of paper-writing for some because I turned in every single paper I've ever written thinking, "this is total crap, but at least it's done," and I don't think I've ever gotten lower than a B (well, there might have been one C in the horrible philosophy-pretending-to-be-poli-sci class I got stuck with last semester, but that was because I didn't understand the material to begin with). But anyway, I'm getting off track. I think I was trying to say that I agree with those who were lamenting most people's abysmal paper writing skills.

Also, one more minor digression: I think AP classes in high school should be structured more like actual college classes, not year-long study sessions for the AP test. I've heard tons of people go on about how well AP classes prepared them for college, but IMO, they're just like regular high school classes, except with more work. Yes, there is more work in college, but that's not the only difference.

[nutella addict]

Ah, most of our teachers did not tailor to the test for AP classes, it was just harder than honors and we spent a bit of time talking about the style of the test and had some timed practices, but they were amazing teachers in love with the subject and determined to teach it as thoroughly as possible.

We never had a basic English class at my university...we actually had very few 100 levels at all, and none in arts (arts and science were separate, I was in arts b/c that's where English/Linguistics were), go figure. My university was very sure of itself (we had mean jokes about all the other Canadian universities). It was expected you would already know that stuff. However my friends who stayed in-state had to really fight to get out of the basic English requirement, and I think only my boyfriend (as a transfer student) succeeded, so I guess such a class could be pretty common.

I agree with you on papers. I, and many of my friends, do the same "this is crap" and then end up with a good grade stuff. And I'm a horribly judgmental person (stepping out of the grammar nazi closet here) when I see bad spelling/grammar/even general writing in published things, but the frequency of it leads me to think that perhaps the standard is lower, because these are university-educated people who still are missing certain things. The BBC recently had an article about Britain's abysmal spelling costing them money... Ah, here it is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14130854 Yes.

[antifundie]

See, I'm of the opinion that most universities should offer a Freshman writing/thinking class. Mostly because (with the exception of the all-freshman class I taught) I've had juniors and seniors who finally got around to taking their writing courses later in their programs, and I'm appalled by their writing--some of them have told me they haven't written papers since high school. I think that having a basic critical thinking+writing class as a requirement would be a really good idea for most Freshman.

Also, I've taught a fair number of English as Second Language learners, and some of them have such poor English that I don't understand how they got into the university in the first place. (Of course, there are always a few who are better at English than I am, so it does go both ways.)

I mean, I just got done with a course where a student asked me if she could use a dictionary for my exam, because she "didn't understand" the questions in the definition portion! Um, no.