Serious question: Do you really think that just because "I had that as a kid," it should remain that way forever?
I really can't figure out why anyone would care about chalkboards.
OT: Should cursive still be taught in schools
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
Serious question: Do you really think that just because "I had that as a kid," it should remain that way forever?
I really can't figure out why anyone would care about chalkboards.
That may be true. But then which foreign language? As Fanu pointed out, he learned German. That doesn't help him understand the culture of Mexico, or Brazil, or Italy, or China, or Japan, or France, or Greece, or Tanzania, or India, or Vietnam, or Sweden, or Peru, or Russia, or Tibet, or Egypt, or, well you get the point.
When it comes to notes, you do what's most comfortable. For me, it was script, but I was forced into using script only from 3rd grade on.
One thing is for sure, you ain't gonna recruit for Ash if you don't know cursive.
I don't think it's that hard. I think knowing just one language helps one learn the key lesson, which is that not everyone does things the way that Americans do, and that doing things other ways is perfectly legitimate.
It's not hard to pick a language; it is hard for many a teenager to pick one that will prove useful, though. Also, the choices aren't always spot on. Ours were Spanish, German, French and Italian. No Japanese or Mandarin. Spanish and German, I see, French kinda, but Italian doesn't seem like the most useful. I think a lot more schools now offer Mandarin, which is a good thing.
I think a better paradigm would be to make foreign languages a more integral part of a college degree. At the same time you have an idea what you'll be doing, you could be learning the language(s) that could prove most useful in that career.
Guess my parents had good foresight in steering me toward German, since I actually find it useful in my career, but I think my mentality at the time was "Sweet, I'll be able to understand the German soldiers in WWII movies." And some high schoolers picking Spanish were thinking, "I'll be able to understand the words surrounding those huge knockers on the Spanish channel."
Certainly studying another language helps you learn about global differences. But that is a far cry from being bilingual. As Fanu mentioned above, he took 6 years of German. But that doesn't make him bilingual in German. I took 7 years of French, and when I try to speak French in France or Belgium, they reply to me in English since my French "hurts their ears".
It is really hard for the average person to be bilingual in the United States, because there is so little opportunity to use the foreign language. I even know old immigrants whose first language was Italian, but since it has been more than 60 years since they spoke Italian, they struggle with the language.
Lack of being bilingual doesn't represent a lack of understanding of global cultures on the part of Americans. It is an artifact of the geography of the United States, just like monolingualism in Australia. However, failing to understand why the United States is monolingual represents a lack of understanding of American culture by Europeans.
(There may be different examples which represent a lack of understanding of global cultures by Americans. It is just monolingualism is not one of those examples. There are also plenty of examples of lack of understanding of global cultures by Europeans. It is probably true that a significant proportion of Americans, Europeans, Asians, etc. are fairly parochial and have limited understanding of cultures outside their own.)
It is very, very easy to be bilingual in English and Spanish in the US. Most major areas will have a ton of Hispanics and the accompanying media. I'm bilingual in Spanish, and I got there not just by majoring in it, but also by tutoring Spanish speakers in English, working in law offices and legal services that used it, watching Spanish language TV, listening to music in Spanish, going to restaurants where it was the main if not sole language, and traveling in Spain and Latin America- but you can probably get to a passable level doing only part of that.
There is a certain cultural laziness in the US, Americans are not as apt to travel outside the US, and when they do it's often to a gated compound somewhere (in which in Mexico or DR, you will get WAY better service than the other Americans when you speak Spanish anyway). You also only need 2-3 years in high school and many colleges (RU included) do not require you study foreign languages. It is not just we live far away - outside of the Hispanic community, are people in San Diego or Tucson extra good at Spanish?
And as we see in this thread, we have more people who think that cursive is important than knowing foreign languages. Is that the same in Australia or the UK? And it still doesn't explain why Canadians are less lingustically lazy. And one thing you have to give all of those countries, is that their citizens travel abroad way more, Canada and Australia have a work exchange program and the UK at least right now in the EU is part of a joint market and travel scheme. While many continental Europeans don't like how Brits stumble drunk through their cities on "stag parties", here in the US, how many Americans can find Riga or Prague on a map? It's all a tie to a general lack of literacy on foreign culture.
There is a certain cultural laziness in the US, Americans are not as apt to travel outside the US, and when they do it's often to a gated compound somewhere (in which in Mexico or DR, you will get WAY better service than the other Americans when you speak Spanish anyway). You also only need 2-3 years in high school and many colleges (RU included) do not require you study foreign languages. It is not just we live far away - outside of the Hispanic community, are people in San Diego or Tucson extra good at Spanish?
And as we see in this thread, we have more people who think that cursive is important than knowing foreign languages. Is that the same in Australia or the UK? And it still doesn't explain why Canadians are less lingustically lazy. And one thing you have to give all of those countries, is that their citizens travel abroad way more, Canada and Australia have a work exchange program and the UK at least right now in the EU is part of a joint market and travel scheme. While many continental Europeans don't like how Brits stumble drunk through their cities on "stag parties", here in the US, how many Americans can find Riga or Prague on a map? It's all a tie to a general lack of literacy on foreign culture.
Spanish, okay. Any other language, no, save for very limited geographical areas.
Unless you have something to actually back that up, "cultural laziness" is officially the new dopey NIRH-ism. If it's even true that Americans are not as apt to travel outside of the US, there are undoubtedly a variety of reasons for that.
The US is one of the larger, more diverse countries of the free first world. There's a lot to see right here, and most Americans haven't seen it. We're also quite isolated as compared to somewhere like Europe or Central America. Traveling through countries in Europe is more akin to traveling through different states here - outside of going to Canada from northern border states, there's no real equivalent. Then there's a chicken-and-egg with the language thing - some people aren't comfortable traveling where they don't know the language and don't realize just how prevalent English is abroad. It's not all just "dumb 'muricans".
I don't see this thread proving your final point at all. Most people here have supported a foreign language of some sort. Cursive was pretty split.
no need to be snippy, I am asking questions about eductation in K-12 because I have not been following the changes and trends
I wasn't so much being snippy as I was genuinely perplexed about why chalkboards mattered.
Fair enough on the answer.
Fair enough on the answer.
I was just wondering if the teacher fills up the chalkboard with stuff that the kid has to write down or do the kids just take a photo with their cellphone.
"Yanks are only half as likely as Europeans to go abroad to visit more than one country — with expense being the number one reason the U.S. is full of homebodies.
The average resident of the United Kingdom has visited 10 countries, Germans on average visit eight nations and the French five, said a Hostelworld Global Traveler Report released Wednesday."
29% of Americans have never even been abroad, the average American has only been to 3 countries.
"The study found that Americans travel most to their northern and southern neighbors. The most-visited destination was Canada (26%), followed by Mexico (23%)."
71% of Americans claim they cannot afford to leave the country.
Compare to this:
25% of Aussies have been to England. Those Australians prove to us all that long-distance travel really isn’t that hard. The US (24%) tied with New Zealand as second most visited,
So, is Australia just a richer country that they can afford to criss cross the world to the same extent Americans can visit a neighboring country within driving distance from much of the country's main population centers? 21% of Brazilians have been to Argentina, and 41% of South Koreans have been to Japan...do they just have more money as well?
Not to mention the fact that international tickets often cost less than domestic. RT airfare to Panama was $406 and I stayed at a 5 star hotel for $120/night in a safe and happening part of Panama City. That is less than you would spend on a domestic trip with airfare and hotel.
American people are just not interested. We can debate the reason, but language doesn't seem to be up there, if we accept Australians being equally incompetent in foreign languages.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/americans-travel-survey-article-1.2431648
http://www.hostelworld.com/blog/introducing-hostelworld-meet-world-report/
Well, considering YOUR OWN evidence that YOU CHOSE to use suggests that Americans can't afford it, you answered your own question. Now if you want to provide some evidence that actually proves your point that they're just disinterested and/or "culturally lazy," well, then we can talk about it again. Comparing the US to Europe is a waste of time - of course Europeans travel more - it's much easier, quicker and more common to travel between countries there.
The rest of those numbers aren't equivalents - they're just scattered facts. Australia has its own set of circumstances that are quite different from anywhere else in the world. It's an isolated island from which you have to basically hop on a plane to go anywhere - at that point you might as well go somewhere you want to go, which I guess is England and the US, with the short trip to NZ falling to third. We're not an isolated island, and a pretty large percentage of our population lives within driving distance of Canada, so people go there more than they pay four figures to fly 10 hours overseas.
The added expense, whether perceived or real, supports my points: there's plenty to do and see right here in the US and we're relatively isolated, making intercontinental travel rather expensive in comparison.
I'll agree on one thing: most Americans aren't interested ... in bargain basement trips to destinations like Panama City.
Australia has such a strong cultural tie to the U.K. that it's no surprise that it's a frequent travel destination for folks down under. After all, much of Australia's white population originated in the British Isles.
Um.. doesn't this mean that 29% of Americans answered they CAN (or have) left the country?
Does that factoid also say that 75% of Aussies do not leave the country?
Why do you care so much how many Americans care to visit foreign countries or embrace foreign cultures?
I'd rather see AMERICAN CULTURE saved from foreign and "street" influences as well as the far left and far right. Yes, that means I do not think rap/hip-hop/street gangs/etc is a positive influence on America. Nor is white supremacist neo-nazi crap.
Sure, but in terms of affordability, that's an expensive flight. Is Australia a richer country than us?
29% of the country never having left speaks for itself. On top of the fact not being able to afford it is everyone in the world's top excuse for absolutely everything.
Why is it "more common" to travel there? Easier in what sense, you don't need a passport for some travel, not all. You used to not need a passport to travel to the rest of N America and the Caribbean, and it wasn't like people stopped going once you needed it. Quicker is debatable, UK is island, and many Europeans travel outside of the Eurozone more than Americans go basically anywhere. Again, that 29% number.
I guess Australians just have cash that Americans don't? Because they could fly much cheaper to Bali (basically their own Cancun) but unless they are richer than Americans, they just have interest in going further afield. Australia is just "isolated" while we're "relatively isolated". Sure. Australians can and do the same things we do. They go on domestic vacations too. But a quarter of them have flown half way around the world, while 29% of Americans have never left at all.
Here I'll do some work for you because you're struggling. You could have made a really easy argument- that Americans don't have as much vacation time, because we're basically the only civilized country that doesn't mandate it. Then you could have a chicken/egg analysis as to what came first, the lack of desire to travel or giving businesses more rights than people, or some combination.
I stayed at the Waldorf for $120/night btw. Plenty of Americans there too, and the best part is if you read a lot of American-written reviews, they complain about service in every hotel, restaurant, bar etc because they weren't spoken to in English...
No, but it has a stronger cultural connection with the British Isles than the U.S. does, and the U.S. has no equivalent relationship with any other country. I suspect that 71% figure you quote above about the U.S. reflects not just finances, but also that Americans are not that eager to go. The more you want to go, the more you'll be willing to stretch your resources to handle it.
More generally, I see Australians whenever I travel to Europe, ,so perhaps their culture is more eager to travel than ours. After all, while Australia is beautiful (and so is New Zealand), there are not nearly as many sites to see as in the United States, and so Australians may be more inclined to travel abroad than Americans.
Did you really just ask why it's easier to travel in Europe, where you can hop on a train or in a car and travel through multiple countries in a day without worrying about passports, airport security, flights, etc.?
Yeah, I'm the one struggling. You posted info that said the exact opposite of your argument, then casually tried to reinterpret to make it fit. It's okay if you want to keep trying to make the world match your own personal view. It's also ok if everyone else calls BS.
Yeah except that the data shows travel outside the Eurozone as well. Not just traveling to the next country over. And again, it's very easy to drive across the border to Canada, which is close to much the US' main population centers.
You like to pick weird and bad arguments, that is your perogative. Free country at least till January 20th.
OK- but what is behind the lack of eagerness. That's what I'm getting at. And I agree, you will always find Australians traveling abroad. So if it's not money, then...there is something there with that eagerness...
Let's make this easy. You said that Americans don't travel because of cultural laziness. The only proof you provided actually disproved that point, showing that money is the main factor. It really doesn't matter whether that lack of money is real or perceived; that's the main reason, according to your sources. If Americans were actually culturally lazy, whatever the he'll that is, the most popular reason for not traveling outside the US would be "no interest."
Personally I couldnt care less why Americans travel less or more than other nations and am sure there is no one reason for why that's the case. I named a few possibilities, but in the end, it matters little.
I'll give you a second chance: try finding a source that supports your claim this time around.
Don't beat him up too bad, making cogent arguments supported by data isn't his strong suit.
Bac
Chalk boards are still in use...as are whiteboards and as are smart boards (interactive technology boards) in the k-12 environment.
You will not find a chalk board in a university setting any more. All white boards and overhead projection of technology (power point slide decks, interwebz content, etc)
Chalk boards are still in use...as are whiteboards and as are smart boards (interactive technology boards) in the k-12 environment.
You will not find a chalk board in a university setting any more. All white boards and overhead projection of technology (power point slide decks, interwebz content, etc)
I've already explained it: Americans don't feel a strong cultural link with another country the way Australians do. Americans might have that cultural link if they studied a foreign language (they don't have to be bilingual) , but increasingly that's not the case. And having some foreign language skill would give Americans more comfort on the road. (Not everyone abroad speaks English well, and starting in English is seen by many Europeans as impolite -- don't try it in France!)
P.S. becoming bilingual in Spanish is harder than you say -- becoming bilingual in any language is hard for an adult (so congratulations on having done it), and many non-Hispanic Americans have little or no contact with Spanish-speakers. Keep in mind that the NYC metropolitan area is not representative of the nation as a whole.
Last edited:
"29% of Americans have never even been abroad" so that means the other 71% have been abroad.
"71% of Americans claim they cannot afford to leave the country." and yet 71% have traveled outside the country.
You really do lack critical thinking skills, don't you.
Yeah but there are some other countries in the study like South Koreans going to Japan where the amount is similar, you still have to fly, and there is outright historical hatred between the countries. Just to use a different relationship.
Actually I think there are probably more outlets to speak Spanish in three of the most populous states, CA, TX and FL. More radio and TV, and with CA and TX, Mexican Spanish is way slower to American ears. I think in our area Hispanic people are a little more concentrated in specific areas versus those states, just from what I have observed.
Traditional methods of teaching language skills are antiquated.
Take military language schools, as an example. We can take just about any soldier and send them to the Defense Language Institute, and have them conversationally fluent in 24 weeks--including Arabic, Mandarin and Russian. You can have them fully fluent, to the point of translator status, in 62 weeks.
They focus less on structure in that environment. It exactly the opposite of the way foreign languages are taught in our schools, including at the university level.
Yawn. Only 30% have passports. 60% of Canadians do. So again, unless Canadians are richer, (their middle class is but not overall), that is bs. But here you go: 80% in the UK- when they need only an ID card to go to Europe, so there goes the whole "Europe is so small" whine.
"Tourism experts and avid travelers attribute Americans' lack of interest in international travel to a few key factors, including: the United States' own rich cultural and geographic diversity, an American skepticism and/or ignorance about international destinations, a work culture that prevents Americans from taking long vacations abroad and the prohibitive cost and logistics of going overseas."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/02/04/americans.travel.domestically/
According to a recent report from the Modern Language Association, college students in the United States are actually studying languages 6.7 percent less now than they did five years ago. Even enrollments in Spanish, America's second language, declined 8.2 percent in that period, in Arabic 7.5 percent and in Russian 17.9 percent.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2015/03/23/essay-problems-american-ignorance-world
Yet, we had, maybe still have, a really bad shortage of Arabic translators. And I don't think it was because they didn't teach it right. Let's say it was added to the curriculum in a high school and taught in the format you suggest. There would be a ton of backlash. Right now Mandarin might get funny looks. Russian maybe.
We cannot even get to the point of best way to teach things (and in terms of languages, there are lots of good arguments) because there is an overrarching sense of perceived danger or foreignness or ill will. Yeah, at RU I took Arabic, but not everywhere is RU, and by the time you're college age most studies will show your best language learning years have passed. We can't even get people learning Spanish which is way easier and more accessible.
Why would there be backlash? Unless you are making it mandatory.
Yes, a child's ability to learn language is inherently easier. Ok. What's your point?
My point is simple. If techniques are altered, the inherent "difficulty" people see in adult language learning is easily overcome. People of all educational backgrounds prove it everyday.
The shortage of Arabic translators had nothing to do with teaching methods. It had to do with finding people willing to spend 14 months learning Arabic. You don't just send someone to a year plus school in the military if they don't want to be there.
Not really. Traveling around America alone you can experience as much more different culture than going from some European countries to the next. New Orleans for instance is vastly different than say, Los Angeles.
You must consider the size of the U.S. A state like California alone could be 3 countries in Europe. Of course it is easier to travel there when you consider train access.
I've traveled the world and I get as much culture living in America as I often do traveling to different countries.
If I were eviscerated as badly as you were in this thread, I'd hang my head and walk away. Actually, I'd probably let my feet move so quickly, I wouldn't have time to think about hanging my head.
I didn't know military language schools were that effective. I'm glad they are, and it sounds like civilian schools and colleges have much to learn from them.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Sources: Marcus Freeman seeking Chris Ash, Mike Mickens to run Notre Dame defense- Latest: PiscatawayMike
-
-
