I still don't see why you're exalting these few subjects over fine arts. My 6-year school requires 5 years of English, 5 of science, 5 of social studies, 4 of arts, 4 of foreign language, 2 of theater, and 2 of health.
soaringeagle22 wrote:Social Studies: explains our society and allows people to understand why things exist and why our society is the way it is. Also, Economics come in quite handy when it comes time to pay the bills, and Civics is vital for the health of our liberty. Psychology, Sociology, and Human Geography allow you to deal with other people and society. Geography is definitely handy in dealing with business, travel, or communication.
This is rather silly. How is knowing about quizbowl topics like the Hecksher-Olin Model or Pareto Optimality going to help me pay bills? I've never taken a civics course, and I think I'm part of a healthy liberty.
Math: Do I need to explain why you need to know how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide. A good basic math education allows you to manage money correctly, and also can keep you in tune with important info pertaining to nutrition and medication, among other things. Also, Geometry is important in many different ways from Carpentry to Fire Fighting.
Arithmetic, sure. But that's not stuff you ask about, or even stuff you learn beyond the age of seven or so.
Science: Biology and Chemistry both allow you to understand how the human body works, and can help you maintain yourself and the world around you. Ecology explains why we MUST take care of our environment. I don't particularly understand Physics. BASIC Computer Science (we're talking Microsoft Office, not Java Language) is a required job skill in most white collar positions. Also, even ordinary housework and car care rely on different forms of Science.
Here is where you're most laughably show your bias. I find physics much more informative and interesting than bio and chem; all three are necessary to have an informed concept of ourselves and the things around us.
Language Arts: This is the art of communication, something you must know how to do to get a job, or even buy groceries. Proper English skills allow you to communicate correctly, and get you ahead in life. Literature is an extension of the world itself, and can range from a Welding Safety Manual to Historical Fiction. It also helps explain the world. And Language is vital if you go into the many career fields that deal with people at some point.
Plenty of people get by without taking theater classes and whatnot. Reading The Catcher in the Rye isn't going to help me buy groceries. Welding safety manuals are not literature; on the other hand, poems and novels, whose necessity to an education you don't seem to question, are interpretations of the world around us,
just like a painting or a symphony.
Fine Arts is an appreciation of something that is, well let's face it, entertainment and a way to express emotion. Here, you have to determine on your own opinion what is important, and while you may get base your moral being on a Haydn symphony, others may base it on how "He Stopped Loving Her Today" and "Amazing Grace" form the rock of their values of love and faith. This is human nature; you can't learn how to be a good artist. On the other hand, you can't learn to enjoy something you find boring or uninspiring. Sports invoke the same forms of entertainment and emotion in a large amount of people. There will be another artist as talented as Bach, and there will be another Basketball player as talented as Lebron James. Does that mean we should dismiss either for further academic study? No.
I look at all the implications of Newton's Second Law and well up at the beauty of the natural world. Does the evocation of emotion make it less valuable?
I may get my moral dictum from The Fountainhead, or I may get it from entirely within myself. Does this have anything to do with the academic quality of the former?
You said you don't understand physics; I take it you find it boring and uninspiring. Does that mean that understanding it is not an important part of a well-rounded education?
There will be another author as talented as William Gaddis. There will be another mathematician as talented as Leonhard Euler. There will be another historian as talented as Herodotus. I have no idea what you're getting at here.
Again, this is Quiz Bowl. We're testing a well rounded amount of knowledge. In my opinion, Sports deserve a place here because of the impact they've had on humans. The way they affect our history, psychology, our cultures and customs. The way they prove the laws of Physics and Geometry, and can disprove Superstition and incorrect theories. The way they can inspire works of Art about them, from literature to film and music. The way they hold sway over billions of people worldwide, and can cause no less than the leader of the Free World, the President of the United States, to take an active interest in them at the same time someone who is at the bottom of the food chain like me can be cheering on the same or opposing team.
This paean to sports has nothing to do with anything. Others have already said it, but again, art is passed down from culture to culture, generation to generation, and studied in schools and by scholars in a style and magnitude that sports simply are not. This is not an arguing point; this is an indisputable fact.
Sports have such an impact on so many people in the same way Art impacts you, and both are worthy releases from the cares of everyday life. I see beauty, love, and every form of emotion and respect in Sports, and view people like Patrick Patterson (passing up money and dreams for loyalty and a good education) and Jackie Robinson (you all know the story from, you guessed it, SCHOOL) as heroes. These people are important to me, and billions of others. Just because you believe this isn't "academic" and your interests are, doesn't mean I have to accept that. I am not making you say Fine Art is un-important, and I agree that it isn't.
Sure, watching sports is evocative for you. What does that have to do with its academic nature?
Argue the point from here on out folks, and stop hiding behind your crumbling Ivory Towers.
Are you saying that quizbowl is not, in its nature, devoted to gaining knowledge in certain ways to create a more comprehensive education? Because that's kind of what the ivory towers do. We're just generally less snooty about it.
Edit for cdcarter's post: Kentucky sees credits differently, I should have said 2 or 3 years of classes, not 3 Credits, which is only one year at your high school. My bad.
See the top of my post.
In short, your arguments are entirely irrelevant to the actual point. Just because you're mandated to work up a sweat during school does not make that subject academic. We had to learn some kinesiology in gym class; I have rightfully been rewarded for this with some biology points. Some people devote their lives to the
history of sports. Many, many, many more devote their lives to fine arts. Besides, when do you ever learn purely about sports in school? I can learn about Jackie Robinson in school, as you say, but it would undoubtedly be put in the context of social change in the country. Nobody in high school teaches sports for its own sake; the same can not be said for arts.