That actually sounds personally kinda nice. I wish I’d been coerced into seriously reading Dante and so on when I was younger, instead of learning completely false but vaguely-reasonable-sounding stuff about genetics and airplanes and Bernoulli’s law.
I recently had some input into a textbook and did my best to ensure that the bit about Bernoulli’s law and airplanes was accurately represented, and similarly for everything else I could find. I don’t know whether the editors will incorporate those changes, but they got them.
If you are not a person who chooses to read Dante voluntarily, you would probably find a way how to fulfill the teachers’ requirements without reading Dante seriously. I have underwent education with emphasis put on the humanities (although probably not as strong as in the Italian system—but I can’t really compare) and the only things I remember are a bunch of literature related trivia—names of few writers and books—and the fact that literature sucks.
Don’t get it wrong: I love Dante, and can indeed quote several pieces of the Divina Commedia by heart. I can even still recite the first 30 verses of Lucretium’s De Rerum Natura (which, by the way, contains some very good proto-rationality).
To be honest, the humanae litterae are often very well taught, encouraging text analysis and critical thinking. To be even more honest, the system works rather well for the more scientific-minded: it helps you keep a broader culture and widens your mental horizons. Unfortunately, it usually has the exact opposite effect on the majority of people.
To be honest, the humanae litterae are often very well taught, encouraging text analysis and critical thinking. To be even more honest, the system works rather well for the more scientific-minded: it helps you keep a broader culture and widens your mental horizons. Unfortunately, it usually has the exact opposite effect on the majority of people.
Wow, that sounds like a massive improvement over the American education system.
That actually sounds personally kinda nice. I wish I’d been coerced into seriously reading Dante and so on when I was younger, instead of learning completely false but vaguely-reasonable-sounding stuff about genetics and airplanes and Bernoulli’s law.
I recently had some input into a textbook and did my best to ensure that the bit about Bernoulli’s law and airplanes was accurately represented, and similarly for everything else I could find. I don’t know whether the editors will incorporate those changes, but they got them.
If you are not a person who chooses to read Dante voluntarily, you would probably find a way how to fulfill the teachers’ requirements without reading Dante seriously. I have underwent education with emphasis put on the humanities (although probably not as strong as in the Italian system—but I can’t really compare) and the only things I remember are a bunch of literature related trivia—names of few writers and books—and the fact that literature sucks.
Very true and very sad. :(
What is this referring to?
Genetics: “[The standard content of] a basic genetics course [....] is so 19th century”
Airplanes and Bernoulli’s law
Don’t get it wrong: I love Dante, and can indeed quote several pieces of the Divina Commedia by heart. I can even still recite the first 30 verses of Lucretium’s De Rerum Natura (which, by the way, contains some very good proto-rationality).
To be honest, the humanae litterae are often very well taught, encouraging text analysis and critical thinking. To be even more honest, the system works rather well for the more scientific-minded: it helps you keep a broader culture and widens your mental horizons. Unfortunately, it usually has the exact opposite effect on the majority of people.
Wow, that sounds like a massive improvement over the American education system.