Having Killed Science, Kansas Lawmakers Now Go After Sex

[Ben Kenobi]

x-post earlier.

Obi, do you honestly think that class in Kansas is about how to "make out"?

That was the only argument brought up before to defend the course.

And BTW- I mentioned that the course should be useful to doctors.

Why should this be taught as a course for credit and not a seminar on the student's time?

And you didn't answer my question. Why do the majority of the students take the class, over lets say, classical poets?

[Flubber]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by obiwan18
Flubber:

guynemer said that he is a medical student, so my question is valid. Doctor can use this information everyday.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Originally posted by obiwan18 [/SIZE]Did you take these at a university level?

Yes.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Do the majority of the students taking the course find them useful for their occupation?

I don't know and to me its irrelevant to whether something is worthy of study. I may take a literature course now out of interest or for enjoyment with no hope of career usefulness. IMHO thats a very narrow view of what university education should be

Originally posted by obiwan18
I'm a history major, likely working in research, and I will say that my training in sciences has helped me to structure my questions, as well as my way of thinking.

I would not dispute that although a course in reasonoing or problem solving could have been more directly useful. I'm sure a sex psych couse could be useful-- the doctor already mentioned several uses for him.

Originally posted by obiwan18
What about this course? Why are the majority of the students taking the course? Are they trying to become doctors, or looking for more efficient ways to make out?

Does it matter?? LOts of people might take a literature class because the prof is cute, or their best friend is taking the class or class does not start till 2, or tests are multiple choice or the prof is known as an easy marker. None of these motives matter. The question is whether there is subject matter worthy of and appropriate to study. IMHO the answer is clearly YES. Whether the class cited in the original post is actually doing so . . . . is something only people that attend the class can declare.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ordinary people might find a lot of the content of university classes obscene. What makes that any different?

You specifically asked how is this obscene, didn't you?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Why should this be taught as a course for credit and not a seminar on the student's time?

What? Why should any course be taught for credit?

And you didn't answer my question. Why do the majority of the students take the class, over lets say, classical poets?

****, they can't take both? I took human sexuality, organic chemistry, advanced physics, Shakespeare, history of the Byzantine Empire, 1970s American film, and tons of other stuff. College is all about exploring knowledge and learning as many different and disparate things as you can, to broaden yourself and open up your mind. I recommend you give it a shot.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Ordinary people might find a lot of the content of university classes obscene. What makes that any different?

You specifically asked how is this obscene, didn't you?

But what makes this so different that there has to be a legislative brouhaha over it?

Besides the fact, obviously, that this happened in Kansas.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Guynemer


College is all about exploring knowledge and learning as many different and disparate things as you can, to broaden yourself and open up your mind. I recommend you give it a shot.

[Berzerker]

Gatekeeper -

Chill, Berz. It was meant to be a humorous link to the not-so-distant time when Kansas was in the spotlight for its educational stance in regards to evolution/creationism. Lighten up for once, would ya?

That said, my own home state has been the nub of more than one joke, and I've learned not to freak out over it. Ain't good for the blood pressure.

So I can't even point out the BS you post without blowing a fuse? Gee, I'll try to keep my cool, that title sure represents the truth and we should all applaud you for your ability to cut through the chaff and and educate us all on the state of education in Kansas.

Oh yeah, it was all a joke.

BS

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Gatekeeper -
...on the state of education in Kansas.

I just thought of a great slogan for your state, Berz.


"Kansas -- The State of Education"

[Ben Kenobi]

College is all about exploring knowledge and learning as many different and disparate things as you can, to broaden yourself and open up your mind. I recommend you give it a shot.

Guynemer:

Nice ad-hominem thrown in there. I disagree with you, so I am 'closed minded?'

Our universities are hard up for funds.

Should we spend money on courses such as this as opposed to Chemistry Labs or Physics Labs?

I agree, money notwithstanding, the purpose of the university should be to open minds.

But when funding gets short, the universities have to make choices on what the can or cannot provide.

Why should any course receive funding?

That's a good question.

posted by Flubber:

The question is whether there is subject matter worthy of and appropriate to study.

And here is your answer.

Is the study into human sexuality worthy and appropriate to study, more so than physics or chemistry?

Who decides? The university administration?

Is this an arbitrary standard?

[Gatekeeper]

Tell me about it, Berz. Next thing you know, they'll insist on teaching that Earth isn't a sphere in Kansas! Which it isn't, BTW.

Elsewhere ... someone in the thread asked earlier about who had taken a sexuality course in college, and I did. I got a "B" in the course, so draw your own conclusions from that.

Gatekeeper

[Guynemer]

I, naturally, got an A.




Obiwan, since when did the issue become whether or not the university can afford, financially, to offer the class? This isn't about cash, it's about politics.

I'm truly sorry your university is strapped for cash.

[Ben Kenobi]

Since my uni had to cut back on the labs for Physics students and Chemistry students.

I'm just trying to take the question to my situation, at least here in BC.

I'd rather spend money on those then courses as the above, because I feel those courses are more valuable.

Don't you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

But what makes this so different that there has to be a legislative brouhaha over it?

You don't think other states have tried things like this. They've usually been unsuccessful, so it hasn't made the news. There are obviously some people who don't like what has been called 'obscene' to be taught in a state university.

[CyberGnu]

Obi, what courses are offered is seldom set at a course level. Normally the physical sciences get one chunk of money, the social sciences another chunk, the arts a third and so on. The size of the chunk normally represents the number of studens enrolled and what image the university wants to present. Most uni's don't have a specific image, although there are notable exceptions (here at CalTech, for example).

So the cutback on chemistry is probably not because the uni value chemistry less, it is a question about how many students are interested. I know it sucks if you are in chemistry (and I've complained bitterly about how I was forced to take "art history" instead of "environmental science" at one point), but that is the reality.

[CyberGnu]

As for the argument that the less "valuable" classes should be eliminated first... Shouldn't the entire arts & letters department go before they touch a social science course?