America's Universities Get "F" on Civics.

[Adrenaline]

I question the basis and point of this study entirely, especially with the comparison of "elite" schools vs "regular" ones as far as civic knowledge goes. Unless history and 'civics' is a required course in all universities then this would seem to be more of a primary and secondary school problem. At the tertiary level professors are not responsible for teaching students about what's in their Declaration of Independence. To the best of my knowledge there is no real standardised curriculum for American universities, nationwide.

Findings 3 & 4 are the only ones that matter, but the conclusions are so obvious (and must have been explored before, surely?) that this study must have only been done to re-emphasize and bring more attention to a well-known problem.

Universities are all ready having to deal with students with poorer writing and math skills, now they have to teach them the basics about their country's founding documents, the Bill of Rights and adult sufferage?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'll bet I could give you the same kind of test on basic chemistry or classical music or French literature or geology and get the same kind of dismal results.

There's just so much to know now that kids just have to prioritize. To a history junkie, not knowing when the constitutiuon was ratified is a shocking sign of ignorance. To a biology student trying to work his way into med school, he doesn't much give a shit about that.

What did I read? That something like 90% of the voting public can't even name two of the Supreme Court Justices, and an even higher percentage can't tell you who their congressman is.

Can you name yours?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I question the basis and point of this study entirely, especially with the comparison of "elite" schools vs "regular" ones as far as civic knowledge goes. Unless history and 'civics' is a required course in all universities then this would seem to be more of a primary and secondary school problem. At the tertiary level professors are not responsible for teaching students about what's in their Declaration of Independence. To the best of my knowledge there is no real standardised curriculum for American universities, nationwide.

Findings 3 & 4 are the only ones that matter, but the conclusions are so obvious (and must have been explored before, surely?) that this study must have only been done to re-emphasize and bring more attention to a well-known problem.

Universities are all ready having to deal with students with poorer writing and math skills, now they have to teach them the basics about their country's founding documents, the Bill of Rights and adult sufferage?

What do kids learn in college? Answer: No one has a clue, because there is no systematic collection of data on this. And that is just the way the colleges like it - they have a cozy racket going: ever increasing funding, ever decreasing productivity and accountability. Plus there is the incredibly corrupt and pernicious subjectivity of admissions standards.

One of these days, maybe sooner rather than later, a supercharged University of Pheonix-type oufit will come along and make these instititions irrelevant. Those that survive the shake out will be quaint anachronisms. I hate to say it, but good riddance - they've brought it on themselves.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'll bet I could give you the same kind of test on basic chemistry or classical music or French literature or geology and get the same kind of dismal results.

There's just so much to know now that kids just have to prioritize. To a history junkie, not knowing when the constitutiuon was ratified is a shocking sign of ignorance. To a biology student trying to work his way into med school, he doesn't much give a shit about that.

What did I read? That something like 90% of the voting public can't even name two of the Supreme Court Justices, and an even higher percentage can't tell you who their congressman is.

Can you name yours?

In a democracy, ignorance in this area is dangerous. Ignorance of French music or geology is less dangerous. (Ignorance of basic scientific knowledge is also dangerous.) Someone said above that the political parties rely on this ignorance. That's correct - they rely on it and cynically manipulate it. It's bipartisan, too.

Question: Why does the political establishment appear so eager to increase voter turnout, when they know darned well the new voters are likely to be dumber than a box of rocks regarding basic citizenship issues?

Answer: They know darned well the new voters are likely to be dumber than a box of rocks regarding basic citizenship issues.

 

[R. Richard]

My niece recently accused me of "dissing" her. (What in the hell is "Dissing" by the way?) She had been complaining to me that her employer, an older woman in charge of a telemarketing office, was unhappy with the way she talked with the customers. She had explained on more than one occasion that slang was not allowed. My niece didn't understand this and when I tred to explaine it she went off. She didn't understand that calling someones spouse a bitch or a whore was not the way t make a good impression.

So what is taught in our schools today?

Cat

Dissing = disrespecting.

What is taught in our public schools is almost nothing. Students are required to memorize infiormation without understanding the basis of the information. When it comes tome for graduates to teach otehrs, you have what they call in aviation a "death spiral."

 

[R. Richard]

What did I read? That something like 90% of the voting public can't even name two of the Supreme Court Justices, and an even higher percentage can't tell you who their congressman is.

Can you name yours?

Supreme Court: John Jay, Olvier Ellsworth, John Marshall. Oh yeah, Earl Warren.

 

[Xelebes]

What did I read? That something like 90% of the voting public can't even name two of the Supreme Court Justices, and an even higher percentage can't tell you who their congressman is.

Can you name yours?

I cannot name a single justice on the Supreme Court of Canada. I suspect that they keep the judges more anonymous in Canada than in the US. I could name my Member of Parliament though, if that makes you happy.

 

[Adrenaline]

What do kids learn in college? Answer: No one has a clue, because there is no systematic collection of data on this. And that is just the way the colleges like it - they have a cozy racket going: ever increasing funding, ever decreasing productivity and accountability. Plus there is the incredibly corrupt and pernicious subjectivity of admissions standards.

One of these days, maybe sooner rather than later, a supercharged University of Pheonix-type oufit will come along and make these instititions irrelevant. Those that survive the shake out will be quaint anachronisms. I hate to say it, but good riddance - they've brought it on themselves.

You're not responding to any of my criticisms. Do American universities have some kind of standardized curriculum that I'm unaware of? Are they all required to have history and 'civics' classes that teach students what primary and secondary teachers should have taught them all ready? At my university in Canada they have to give writing tests to entering frosh to evaluate their writing skills, and offer special tutoring to the ones who fail but the other side to your exaggerated description of the situation is that tertiary institutions are having to take on more and more of the burden of teaching skills that their faculty are not equipped or have the time to teach.

It would be wonderful if universities could to go back to the liberal arts ideal they started from, rather than the specialized vocational schools they've become, but I can only imagine the hue and the cry that would result if universities started requiring full arts and science credits to senior year in HS, and made a substantial number of english, history and science courses a requirement for first and second year. Not only would the acceptance rate drop like a stone (not to mention first year retention rates), parents and high schools would be protesting at the gates.

I am all for universities being held accountable. The idea that the core curriculum of the average university student should have more breadth (and include science and math, for heaven's sakes) is a good one. However this brandishing of studies on how university students don't know the content of the Declaration of Independence and blaming it on universities when everyone knows the student should have learnt that stuff ages ago?

And do you know what? Universities can require courses all they like but if the population itself isn't interested in knowing about their country's history and government they'll forget all of it once it's no longer compulsory.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You're not responding to any of my criticisms. Do American universities have some kind of standardized curriculum that I'm unaware of? Are they all required to have history and 'civics' classes that teach students what primary and secondary teachers should have taught them all ready? At my university in Canada they have to give writing tests to entering frosh to evaluate their writing skills, and offer special tutoring to the ones who fail but the other side to your exaggerated description of the situation is that tertiary institutions are having to take on more and more of the burden of teaching skills that their faculty are not equipped or have the time to teach.

It would be wonderful if universities could to go back to the liberal arts ideal they started from, rather than the specialized vocational schools they've become, but I can only imagine the hue and the cry that would result if universities started requiring full arts and science credits to senior year in HS, and made a substantial number of english, history and science courses a requirement for first and second year. Not only would the acceptance rate drop like a stone (not to mention first year retention rates), parents and high schools would be protesting at the gates.

I am all for universities being held accountable. The idea that the core curriculum of the average university student should have more breadth (and include science and math, for heaven's sakes) is a good one. However this brandishing of studies on how university students don't know the content of the Declaration of Independence and blaming it on universities when everyone knows the student should have learnt that stuff ages ago?

And do you know what? Universities can require courses all they like but if the population itself isn't interested in knowing about their country's history and government they'll forget all of it once it's no longer compulsory.

Oh, right, I left something out of my previous post: I would expect that institutions that presumably hold themselves to high standards would not be content to allow a situation like this fester, and would not require a study like this to make them aware of it. Hell, anyone with the most casual contact with kids on most campuses knows that this is a problem. That's my real beef about lack of accountability in this matter - they should have fixed this on their own long ago. Clearly, they have different priorities and agendas - and I don't mean specialized career training - which is why I think before long some alternative system will come along and obsolete them.

In general I agree with the things you say here - good posts.

 

[rgraham666]

If we want our primary and secondary schools to do a better job teaching we're going to have to spend more money to hire more teachers and build more schools. Something we're not willing to do. That would require higher taxes and/or redistributing money from other areas.

But lowering taxes is now our prime priority. And we aren't willing to take money from other areas.

Our schools, as a result, are now very efficient. They just don't do a very good job.

 

[Weird Harold]

"Negative learning" may be an artifact. If today's freshmen are actually marginally better educated about these things than the young ivy leaguers of three and four years ago, they would score better.

If there was a pattern of "negative learning" across the board, I might agree with you, but the negative results were for just sixteen of forty schools.

However, if the five sample questions are a true indication of the level of difficulty they were testing for, I most vehemently agree that the fault lies not with the colleges but with the elementary and middle schools.

FINDING 3: Students don't learn what colleges don't teach.

Student learning about America's history and institutions decreases when fewer courses are taken in history, political science, government, and economics.

Well duh!

Colleges should NOT have to be teaching these courses to all students; someone majoring in a science discipline shouldn't be required to take American History -- possibly required to take a "History of Science" course, but there is no point to requiring a science major to retake a course that should have been taken long before the student got to college.

 

[Pure]

RA //That's my real beef about lack of accountability in this matter - they should have fixed this on their own long ago. Clearly, they have different priorities and agendas - and I don't mean specialized career training - which is why I think before long some alternative system will come along and obsolete them. //

Well, the US has somewhat of a free market in universities, how would you have 'accountability.' There's lots of consumer choice with various private entities-- how did they do?

As to your dream of U Phoenix, what are its results. My impression is that the 'new entrants' to the field, that you have hopes for, are stressing specific career preparations, e.g. for accounting, software design, business. And they're pricey.

So the (more) 'free market' solution will make things worse in terms of the measures that you're touting (basic knowledge of Am Hist. etc.)

"Free market" is in many areas, and many situations--like fast food-- a way to get crap. Tasty, that is, but crap.

 

[elsol]

I'm sure there's a link between my question and your answer. Which link that is, I have no idea.

I was adding to your point...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If we want our primary and secondary schools to do a better job teaching we're going to have to spend more money to hire more teachers and build more schools. Something we're not willing to do. That would require higher taxes and/or redistributing money from other areas.

But lowering taxes is now our prime priority. And we aren't willing to take money from other areas.

Our schools, as a result, are now very efficient. They just don't do a very good job.

The United States has doubled spending on K-12 education in the past 25 years, in real terms. Student performance and learning have not improved at all.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Every year the Shanghai Jiao Tong University of Higher Education produces a widely accepted listing of the world's best universities -
world top universities 2006

If American undergraduates are learning nothing, or even 'negative learning' - does that mean forgetting? - the rest of the world has real problems.

Of the top ten for 2006, 8 are US, with Harvard and Stanford at 1 and 2. Oxford and Cambridge are the only foreign universities in the Top Ten. Yale and Cornell creep in at 11 and 12 and 38 out of the global top 50 are American.

To claim that US education is falling off a cliff because students concerned with GPA's, Midterms and course essays couldn't be much bothered with a half-baked general knowledge quiz is absurd.

As someone said, kids and their parents may have to find up to $200,000 for a college education. They do this only because the 'product' is worth that much to them. It has nothing to do with rote learning that can be done with a popquiz on the net. If colleges did not offer an education that helped students to get good jobs, applications would start drying up pretty quick.

 

[Adrenaline]

Oh, right, I left something out of my previous post: I would expect that institutions that presumably hold themselves to high standards would not be content to allow a situation like this fester, and would not require a study like this to make them aware of it. Hell, anyone with the most casual contact with kids on most campuses knows that this is a problem. That's my real beef about lack of accountability in this matter - they should have fixed this on their own long ago. Clearly, they have different priorities and agendas - and I don't mean specialized career training - which is why I think before long some alternative system will come along and obsolete them.

In general I agree with the things you say here - good posts.

It's largely allowed to fester because it's unrealistic to expect universities to take on the burden of teaching a primary and secondary level curriculum. It simply can't be done. It's arguable that they should be more active in persuading the government and the population to improve pre-tertiary education. I'm sure that they knew about this years ago since I recall several articles where universities have complained about the decreasing quality of incoming students every year; and how they have to create what are, more or less, learning rehabilitation programmes to get basic skills up to par.

On a somewhat less relevant note, I am all for universities doing more to produce well-rounded students--a country's history doesn't stop at whatever basic info you get from high school, or the skimming that's done in "World History". To produce better human beings and better citizens I would be all for science majors required to take history and philosphy, and arts students required to take math and biology for example. Whether it's a doable scenario with the current state of education is another question all together. The idea of universities have changed so radically that a degree is seen as nothing more but a job ticket. It seems to me as if few people care about truly being educated anymore.

 

[jeninflorida]

the kids are coming out okay, just a little green. universities waste a ton of money, and that whole tenor th ing, where after x number of years professiors become gods....what a bunch of dead weight

It's largely allowed to fester because it's unrealistic to expect universities to take on the burden of teaching a primary and secondary level curriculum. It simply can't be done. It's arguable that they should be more active in persuading the government and the population to improve pre-tertiary education. I'm sure that they knew about this years ago since I recall several articles where universities have complained about the decreasing quality of incoming students every year; and how they have to create what are, more or less, learning rehabilitation programmes to get basic skills up to par.

On a somewhat less relevant note, I am all for universities doing more to produce well-rounded students--a country's history doesn't stop at whatever basic info you get from high school, or the skimming that's done in "World History". To produce better human beings and better citizens I would be all for science majors required to take history and philosphy, and arts students required to take math and biology for example. Whether it's a doable scenario with the current state of education is another question all together. The idea of universities have changed so radically that a degree is seen as nothing more but a job ticket. It seems to me as if few people care about truly being educated anymore.

 

[rgraham666]

But without tenure, professors become prey to the whims of people in charge. A professor will be forced to teach what he's told to teach. So his primary purpose will be to keep his job, not teach his students.

That won't serve our society very well.

 

[jeninflorida]

But without tenure, professors become prey to the whims of people in charge. A professor will be forced to teach what he's told to teach. So his primary purpose will be to keep his job, not teach his students.

That won't serve our society very well.

I guess that I’m jealous. How nice it must be to have a job, where you’re not accountable. When you were hired to teach, do x number of years, and then you’re off to do some “research” or something.

I’m sure that some actually do research and have added value to America. And I’m sure that there is a percentage working on research papers that basically amount to nothing.

I believe that this is part of the reason why education is becoming so expensive. Can’t tell you how many times a year my university calls asking for money. Universities are in a dream land that does serve a function but when it comes to the bottom line, most universities only worry about increasing revenue. This is fine and dandy, but some point people will rebel.

The cost of education will become too steep and people will shy away. Then, as less people attend universities, the university will have to worry about the bottom line. The university keeps on raising tuition and we keep on paying more and more. Why? Don’t you think that most universities can easily slash 10% of the budget?

There should be processors and the research (r&d) function of a university. One can move from project to project, and can teach a year, then do r&d. Or something like that. Its nuts to think, that once you have a job, one has that job for life.

This is still the best system in the world, with a balance between education and having a life.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I like a lot of what Adrenaline is saying. I'm also surprised that no one has questioned this "test" that's included in the post. Shall we examine it?

1) Which of the following are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence?
A. life, liberty, and property.
B. honor, liberty, and peace.
C. liberty, health, and community.
D. life, respect, and equal protection.
E. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, yes, it's a nice thing to know what rights are referred to in the Declaration of Independence as opposed to those listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and those inferred or derived in later legal practice. However, this question tests not our understanding of the rights and privileges of American society, but our memory of what texts grant them. Frankly, I think the latter a great deal less important than the former for the general populace. This looks suspiciously like a question designed for failure so that someone can claim that our graduates know nothing of our country's rights and nature, when in fact they are simply fuzzy on which document they come from. Education is not in fact a process of memorizing documents; it's about knowing the core important concepts and knowing how to find the documents that support them. This question is like asking a doctor which textbook he learned about cholera from instead of asking him what it is and how to treat it.

2) During which period was the American Constitution amended to guarantee women the right to vote?
A. 1850 – 1875
B. 1876 – 1900
C. 1901 – 1925
D. 1926 – 1950
E. 1951 – 1975

Again, what's more important here - knowing the issues and events that had prevented women from voting and the driving forces that got them the vote, or knowing the date when they were guaranteed the right to vote? I think that dates have an important role in learning, yes, but to conclude that our graduates know nothing of this issue because they can't stick a year on it is silly. Educated people know that it happened, know what caused it and how it affected society, have a general idea of the time period, and can look up a date. They know *to* look up the date, because they know what actually happened and why it mattered.

3) In his “I Have a Dream” speech, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
A. argued for the abolition of slavery.
B. advocated black separatism.
C. morally defended affirmative action.
D. expressed his hopes for racial justice and brotherhood.
E. proposed that several of America’s founding ideas were discriminatory.

The authors of this test are evidently keen to establish that Dr. King did neither B, C, or E. However, nothing in the text of the speech precludes C or E, and it could reasonably be derived from it. There are arguments for and againsth that position, and I would not call either a necessary derivation of the speech. However, to include those options in this "test" and label any such answers wrong suggests to me a political axe to grind and a desire for a shocking statistic on how ignorant people are. That they may not in fact be ignorant seems of relatively little concern to the test makers.

4) Which of the following was an alliance to resist Soviet expansion?
A. United Nations.
B. League of Nations.
C. North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
D. Warsaw Pact.
E. Asian Tigers.

This is an oversimplification of the alliance that once more strongly suggests a political goal on the part of the group constructing the test.

5) Which of the following is the best measure of production or output of an economy?
A. Gross Domestic Product.
B. Consumer Price Index.
C. Unemployment Rate.
D. Prime Rate.
E. Exchange Rate.

One question in five that actually has a single, clear, potentially relevant answer that I'd expect an educated person to know. I wonder how many people actually got this one wrong?

This quiz is a perfect example of the problem with attempting to measure education in a standardized test format. Standardized tests are good at measuring empirical facts and definitions. That's helpful in fields like math and biology, where there are empirically provable, factual single answers for many things. It's fairly useless when teaching something like civics, in which empirically measurable facts like when a bill was passed are of considerably less importance than the social, economic, and political causes and effects of them, many of which are intangible or immeasurable in practical terms. Yes, that makes them difficult to test quickly and consistently. However, sensible people, when faced with important concepts that are difficult to test, do not resort to elevating the importance of things that are easier to test instead. This test looks to me like scare-mongering with a political aim behind it.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

I guess that I’m jealous. How nice it must be to have a job, where you’re not accountable. When you were hired to teach, do x number of years, and then you’re off to do some “research” or something.

I’m sure that some actually do research and have added value to America. And I’m sure that there is a percentage working on research papers that basically amount to nothing.

I believe that this is part of the reason why education is becoming so expensive. Can’t tell you how many times a year my university calls asking for money. Universities are in a dream land that does serve a function but when it comes to the bottom line, most universities only worry about increasing revenue. This is fine and dandy, but some point people will rebel.

The cost of education will become too steep and people will shy away. Then, as less people attend universities, the university will have to worry about the bottom line. The university keeps on raising tuition and we keep on paying more and more. Why? Don’t you think that most universities can easily slash 10% of the budget?

There should be processors and the research (r&d) function of a university. One can move from project to project, and can teach a year, then do r&d. Or something like that. Its nuts to think, that once you have a job, one has that job for life.

This is still the best system in the world, with a balance between education and having a life.

Actually, the research emphasis in many universities is coming from a lack of funding. Research can bring money into a university from external sources, so it's valued as potential revenue. If the faculty only teach classes, they only bring in the money that's normally in the system - state and federal funding per student, student tuition, and fund-raising. If the faculty do grant-funded research, the university gets a cut of that as an administering fee plus the other sources of revenue. It's unfortunate in some ways, because the research work tends to involve the "big guns" spending more time in labs and having grant-funding-paid teaching assistants or non-Ph.D. instructors teach the classes. But that's ultimately a case of getting what one pays for. It's want of money that drives many institutions to emphasize research.

The other matter I suspect is an extension of the measurement issue. It's hard to measure how good a teacher someone is because there are so many ways someone can teach well or poorly, but it's easy to measure how many publications s/he has or how many dollars in grant funding s/he secured. It becomes valuable because it is measurable and it is definitely there.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

two questions.

exactly how would ms roxanne plan to hold colleges and universities accountable?

how would you alter, if so, the composition or procedures of the accrediting bodies.?

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Actually, the research emphasis in many universities is coming from a lack of funding. Research can bring money into a university from external sources, so it's valued as potential revenue. If the faculty only teach classes, they only bring in the money that's normally in the system - state and federal funding per student, student tuition, and fund-raising. If the faculty do grant-funded research, the university gets a cut of that as an administering fee plus the other sources of revenue. It's unfortunate in some ways, because the research work tends to involve the "big guns" spending more time in labs and having grant-funding-paid teaching assistants or non-Ph.D. instructors teach the classes. But that's ultimately a case of getting what one pays for. It's want of money that drives many institutions to emphasize research.

The other matter I suspect is an extension of the measurement issue. It's hard to measure how good a teacher someone is because there are so many ways someone can teach well or poorly, but it's easy to measure how many publications s/he has or how many dollars in grant funding s/he secured. It becomes valuable because it is measurable and it is definitely there.

Shanglan

This neatly summarizes the problem.

Universities are not, and never were, part of the general education system - a tertiary layer. They are first and foremost a place of scholarship where research and erudite analysis takes place. Since time immemorial, theses august seats of learning allowed talented young people to come and sit at the foot of a master and learn.

The basic concept is to learn how to think - analyze, experiment, question - and develop your thinking process. The resaon so many overseas candidates seek to study in Ivy League universities is the global cachet of 'professional intellectual' a good degree implies. If I were rude, I would compare it with an USDA stamp.

From the class of 1998,I can assure you the pressures on today's undergraduates are much higher.

When you speak of dumbing down, you have to look at junior and senior high,where all attempts to challenge the brightest. demand a basic work ethic from all and instill an ethic of self-determination have long since been quashed in a quasi-egalitarian soup.

Personally, if I have to go under the knife, I don't give a flying fuck if my surgeon knows what the founding fathers said to each other. I just want to know he is competent in a crisis.

 

[rgraham666]

When you speak of dumbing down, you have to look at junior and senior high,where all attempts to challenge the brightest. demand a basic work ethic from all and instill an ethic of self-determination have long since been quashed in a quasi-egalitarian soup.

The 'old way' didn't work much better, elfin. It's the system I went to school under forty odd years ago.

It more resembled the latter part of your statement than the former. My public school principle told my mom, in my presence, that I was uneducable. He thought I was too stupid to understand the word.

When I went to school there were only two types of students in it, normal and stupid. I wasn't normal.

To be honest, I suspect this endless cry about the 'failure' of our educational system is simply an attack on it in the hope that we'll become frightened enough to replace it with a private system.

Never mind that a private system will place an education out of the reach of most people. Which will result in a much poorer population.

But we've forgotten our history and so are doomed to repeat it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

In a democracy, ignorance in this area is dangerous. Ignorance of French music or geology is less dangerous. (Ignorance of basic scientific knowledge is also dangerous.) Someone said above that the political parties rely on this ignorance. That's correct - they rely on it and cynically manipulate it. It's bipartisan, too.

Question: Why does the political establishment appear so eager to increase voter turnout, when they know darned well the new voters are likely to be dumber than a box of rocks regarding basic citizenship issues?

Answer: They know darned well the new voters are likely to be dumber than a box of rocks regarding basic citizenship issues.

It's interesting that, back when America was breaking away from England, not everyone was in favor of a democratic form of government. (Noah Webster was one of those who was anti-democracy) It seems almost treasonous to us today that anyone could be anti-democracy, but the argument then was that the business of government is a special skill too important to be left to the rabble, who would probably be too self-serving and/or uninformed to make the wise, well-informed decisions necessary to run a nation.

I'm pretty certain that voters have always been about as dumb or smart and as well-informed on the issues as they are now, which is to say, not very. I really don't think that your average voter of 20-30 years ago was any more well-educated then they are now.

Let's face it: most of us get through life just fine without knowing algebra or American Constitutional history, and personally, I'm not sure how knowing the contents of MLKing's "I Have A Dream" speech are going to help me elect the best man to be president.

Here we are engaged in this War on Radical Islamic Terror, and I doubt there's 1 person in 10 on this board who can tell you anything about the difference between Shi'a and Sunni Islam or the history of European Colonialism in the Middle East. Isn't knowing something about that more important to understanding what's going on in the world today than knowing when women got the vote? I don't know how many times I had to learn just how a bill becomes a law and then just as quickly forgot it.

There's been a big shift in the purpose of college in the last 25 years or so. Few peolle go to pursue a liberal education anymore. Colleges are now professional trade schools. You go to get a degree in accounting or hotel management or marketing or IT or Outdoor Recreation.

And of course politicians want to keep the voters dumb. Or rather - they want them to only know what they tell them. Twas ever thus, but now it's getting very bad. Journalism has become entertainment and what matters is not truth but what Stephen Colbert calls "Truthiness" - what seems "truthy"

As Colbert says: "Why mess around checking your facts when you can just make them up?"

As Homer Simpson says: "Facts are meaningless! They can be used to prove anything!"

And as someone else said: "Democracy is that form of government where the people get exactly the kind of leadership they deserve."