I came across this quote from Philosophy: Who Needs It?:
Aristotle in philosophy, von Mises in economics, Montessori in education, Hugo in literature.
while doing some writing.
Question: do you have any opinion on Montessori in education (I ask because of the whole TCS stuff, I wonder if various children teaching/education philosophies were discussed)?
Yes TCS criticized many alternatives. TCS didnāt like Montessori. I havenāt revisited Montessori recently after having more criticisms of TCS.
Iām also taking a Communications class this semester and Iāve been pleasantly surprised by it.
I think Communications (along with stuff like English, Art, and other liberal arts(?) degrees) gets made fun of for being easy. Sure. Comparatively it is easier than science classes Iāve done in the past. However, I think maybe because the stuff is easier people think its valueless? Iām unsure about that, but I know I thought that because of how people talk about those degrees. Iāve heard sentiments along the lines of if you have a Communication degree youāre an idiot and stuff. That made me think those degrees have no value. So far, going through this class, I disagree with that old sentiment of mine.
I mean the class has some flaws for sure. Some of the textbook writing is bad (ironic for a communications textbook). However, there are some things I like. It breaks down Communication and treats it more like a science. I donāt know how deep and valid this stuff is, but it makes sense. I think thatās good to treat Communication as something to study and not take for granted.
The recent chapter Iām reading covers listening vs. hearing. The textbook points out most people think theyāre the same and overrate their listening abilities. I agree. Most people are terrible listeners in my experience (I think Iām fine, but I could be overestimating myself).
Communications is not an easy subject inherently. Communicating effectively with people is hard and complicated. Communications may be a less developed/advanced field than math, or they may be worse at teaching it, idk.
As one example, untrained people often screw up public relations and media appearances. These things are seen as hard. Even āexpertsā reasonably often screw them up too. Media/PR training does seem to be a real thing that makes some difference and helps avoid some errors.
Hmm. That makes sense.
Do you have an opinion on why people tend to do better in subjects like English, Communications, Journalism, Art, and other typical liberal arts courses versus courses like Math, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, and other similar courses? Like I wouldnāt think of the liberal arts as inherently an easy subject, but it seems to be a thing that as a student people do better in those classes (how well that translates to real world value idk).
I do think stuff like the sciences probably arenāt taught that great (the teaching itself I think the content is probably fine idk).
When people disagree about communications or art concepts, overall weāre worse at figuring out who is objectively correct than for math or science. Maybe that leads to less harsh grading because teachers are less (over)confident. Maybe it leads to teachers wanting students to be creative and think for themselves (which is sort of incompatible with strictness, it means more freedom for students to decide their own activities and still pass) instead of rigorously learning existing knowledge.
Just a couple low confidence speculations.