Jeopardy Test for College students

[jonesthecurl]

We all maintain this illusion that being cultured and knowing your history is important. But in reality, that knowledge is important only for people who attempt to shape public policy or social discourse. Even Sherlock Holmes knew that remembering facts for the sake of remembering facts is stupid.

Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character, and everything he did was fictional. I'm not sure how he comes in to the "in reality" side of the argument.

Still, when you argue with me, aren't you attempting to shape social discourse?

I'm pretty sure knowledge is important to everyone, no?

I dunno.

[Army of GOD]

ZOMG!! 7 minutes. I'm so fucked. I didn't get final jeopardy right today =(

[Army of GOD]

Highlights: I totally got the Great Gatsby and Greenland questions right. Oh, and my favorite: "The team Dwayne Wade plays for"


Lowlights: Fucking question about the main character in Glee and for some reason I thought Toyota made the Elantra, not Hyundai.

f*ck

[Army of GOD]

AND I ANSWERED QUALM INSTEAD OF QUAGMIRE. FUCKSWOREIAJWERAWER

[BigBallinStalin]

^ those are both facts that you can learn in a textbook, though. they aren't really "intelligence".

btw i challenge anyone to an online iq test contest. pick your test and bring your best!

feeling competitive today lol...

Well I was bored so I spent 20 minutes doing the most "professional" image based iq test I could find.
Once I finished I realized they don't actually give you your IQ unless you pay a few quid.

Given the fact that I didn't think to check for this I think it's safe to say that you win.
Congrats!

Did you just defeat yourself?

[spurgistan]

Damn, I missed it. My last chance. Almost got the unofficial qualifying score last time I tried.

[Army of GOD]

Damn, I missed it. My last chance. Almost got the unofficial qualifying score last time I tried.

Did they tell you? I thought they don't tell you your score at all...just if you made it or not...

[thegreekdog]

I think history also teaches us to think critically, more so than other subjects. Critical thinking can be important outside the realm of "shaping public policy."

Yes, I know I'm late to the party. I have Tea Party threads to deal with!

[Metsfanmax]

I think history also teaches us to think critically, more so than other subjects. Critical thinking can be important outside the realm of "shaping public policy."

Yes, I know I'm late to the party. I have Tea Party threads to deal with!

I don't think that's inherently true; those who study history attempt to think critically about mistakes or successes of past leaders. But most people don't do this for the sake of studying history; they do it because they want to educate future leaders about how to avoid similar mistakes, and learn from past successes. There's no other point.

[thegreekdog]

I think history also teaches us to think critically, more so than other subjects. Critical thinking can be important outside the realm of "shaping public policy."

Yes, I know I'm late to the party. I have Tea Party threads to deal with!

I don't think that's inherently true; those who study history attempt to think critically about mistakes or successes of past leaders. But most people don't do this for the sake of studying history; they do it because they want to educate future leaders about how to avoid similar mistakes, and learn from past successes. There's no other point.

Well, I became a history major because I liked history, reading, and writing. And in addition to learning about history, I learned how to think critically, write critically, and read a substantial volume of materials in a short period of time. All of these things have helped me in law school and as a lawyer.

[spurgistan]

Damn, I missed it. My last chance. Almost got the unofficial qualifying score last time I tried.

Did they tell you? I thought they don't tell you your score at all...just if you made it or not...

Oh, nobody told me, I checked my answers, the Jeopardy fora have them.

[Metsfanmax]

I think history also teaches us to think critically, more so than other subjects. Critical thinking can be important outside the realm of "shaping public policy."

Yes, I know I'm late to the party. I have Tea Party threads to deal with!

I don't think that's inherently true; those who study history attempt to think critically about mistakes or successes of past leaders. But most people don't do this for the sake of studying history; they do it because they want to educate future leaders about how to avoid similar mistakes, and learn from past successes. There's no other point.

Well, I became a history major because I liked history, reading, and writing. And in addition to learning about history, I learned how to think critically, write critically, and read a substantial volume of materials in a short period of time. All of these things have helped me in law school and as a lawyer.

So your response to my statement, that studying history and gaining historical knowledge is only useful for shaping public policy, is that you did these things and became a lawyer? I'd say that's pretty much my point. There was nothing unique about the field you were studying that made it useful for critical thinking. Critical thinking skills can be honed in any field that requires gathering data/knowledge and assessing it.

[thegreekdog]

I think history also teaches us to think critically, more so than other subjects. Critical thinking can be important outside the realm of "shaping public policy."

Yes, I know I'm late to the party. I have Tea Party threads to deal with!

I don't think that's inherently true; those who study history attempt to think critically about mistakes or successes of past leaders. But most people don't do this for the sake of studying history; they do it because they want to educate future leaders about how to avoid similar mistakes, and learn from past successes. There's no other point.

Well, I became a history major because I liked history, reading, and writing. And in addition to learning about history, I learned how to think critically, write critically, and read a substantial volume of materials in a short period of time. All of these things have helped me in law school and as a lawyer.

So your response to my statement, that studying history and gaining historical knowledge is only useful for shaping public policy, is that you did these things and became a lawyer? I'd say that's pretty much my point. There was nothing unique about the field you were studying that made it useful for critical thinking. Critical thinking skills can be honed in any field that requires gathering data/knowledge and assessing it.

My response to your statement was as follows:

(1) I studied history
(2) I learned critical thinking, critical writing, and critical speaking by studying history (not math, not science, not literature)
(3) The items in #2 helped me in law school and helps me as a lawyer

You skipped the second step.

I cannot speak to the experiences of others (and neither can you by the way). If there is a study done on this issue, I would read it and likely agree with what it said (instead of what I think). Until then, I submit that history is useful for teaching people to think critically. I don't know if other subjects are useful for critical thinking, although you submit that they are.

[Metsfanmax]

My response to your statement was as follows:

(1) I studied history
(2) I learned critical thinking, critical writing, and critical speaking by studying history (not math, not science, not literature)
(3) The items in #2 helped me in law school and helps me as a lawyer

You skipped the second step.

I cannot speak to the experiences of others (and neither can you by the way). If there is a study done on this issue, I would read it and likely agree with what it said (instead of what I think). Until then, I submit that history is useful for teaching people to think critically. I don't know if other subjects are useful for critical thinking, although you submit that they are.

I did not skip the second step. I expressly pointed out that nothing about studying history gave you unique critical thinking skills. You could have gained those from many other undergraduate majors and still been successful in law school (many people do this). Therefore, you are not showing anything by stating that you studied history and, in doing so, practiced critical thinking skills. This proves the original point made, which was that the only unique thing about studying history is that you can combine the critical thinking skills with your knowledge of relevant historical situations to make better decisions on social and public policy. If you do not do this, then your historical knowledge is rendered moot, and the only thing you gained from your study of history is your critical thinking skill set, which could have been cultured in many other ways. If you do not know that being a physical or social scientist teaches you those skills, then trust me on that.

[thegreekdog]

I expressly pointed out that nothing about studying history gave you unique critical thinking skills.

I suppose I can agree with this if I assume that studying other subjects would give me the same critical thinking skills (and the rest of your post.

What about critical reading and critical writing?

[Metsfanmax]

I expressly pointed out that nothing about studying history gave you unique critical thinking skills.

I suppose I can agree with this if I assume that studying other subjects would give me the same critical thinking skills (and the rest of your post.

What about critical reading and critical writing?

I'm not convinced that critical writing is actually a thing. As for critical reading, I suppose that's a skill that's only useful within the domain of its application; most normal people, in most normal jobs, don't need to look for subtleties and deep meanings in a text. They just need to be able to read it and get the main points.

[thegreekdog]

I expressly pointed out that nothing about studying history gave you unique critical thinking skills.

I suppose I can agree with this if I assume that studying other subjects would give me the same critical thinking skills (and the rest of your post.

What about critical reading and critical writing?

I'm not convinced that critical writing is actually a thing. As for critical reading, I suppose that's a skill that's only useful within the domain of its application; most normal people, in most normal jobs, don't need to look for subtleties and deep meanings in a text. They just need to be able to read it and get the main points.

Fair enough. Do you think, on average, someone who studies biology is better equipped for law school than someone who studies history?

[Metsfanmax]

I expressly pointed out that nothing about studying history gave you unique critical thinking skills.

I suppose I can agree with this if I assume that studying other subjects would give me the same critical thinking skills (and the rest of your post.

What about critical reading and critical writing?

I'm not convinced that critical writing is actually a thing. As for critical reading, I suppose that's a skill that's only useful within the domain of its application; most normal people, in most normal jobs, don't need to look for subtleties and deep meanings in a text. They just need to be able to read it and get the main points.

Fair enough. Do you think, on average, someone who studies biology is better equipped for law school than someone who studies history?

I don't know if I would say they are better equipped, but the skills and intelligence needed to do well in advanced biology at the undergrad level should adequately prepare one for law school, based on my understanding. From what I can tell, doing decently in law school is mostly about putting in the long hours necessary for doing the reading and writing assignments. I don't see why a history student would be any better or worse off for that job.

[thegreekdog]

I don't know if I would say they are better equipped, but the skills and intelligence needed to do well in advanced biology at the undergrad level should adequately prepare one for law school, based on my understanding. From what I can tell, doing decently in law school is mostly about putting in the long hours necessary for doing the reading and writing assignments. I don't see why a history student would be any better or worse off for that job.

I'm not sure what goes into advanced biology at the undergraduate level. I once described college as being ten times the reading as high school and law school as ten times the reading as college. I'm not sure a biology major is equipped for that level of reading and, more importantly, reading comprehension. Additionally, law school being what it is, the most important year is your first. A biology major who may be unprepared for the reading comprehension needs and skilled writing needs may lag behind at first but catch up later.

[Metsfanmax]

I don't know if I would say they are better equipped, but the skills and intelligence needed to do well in advanced biology at the undergrad level should adequately prepare one for law school, based on my understanding. From what I can tell, doing decently in law school is mostly about putting in the long hours necessary for doing the reading and writing assignments. I don't see why a history student would be any better or worse off for that job.

I'm not sure what goes into advanced biology at the undergraduate level. I once described college as being ten times the reading as high school and law school as ten times the reading as college. I'm not sure a biology major is equipped for that level of reading and, more importantly, reading comprehension. Additionally, law school being what it is, the most important year is your first. A biology major who may be unprepared for the reading comprehension needs and skilled writing needs may lag behind at first but catch up later.

All that's required for "reading comprehension" is an adequate level of intelligence, which is really independent of the major chosen by the student. Being a history major perhaps made you more accustomed to long hours spent reading, but that doesn't necessarily make you a better reader or better at reading comprehension. Besides, have you ever actually tried to read a scientific journal article? Requires at least as much reading comprehension as your average court decision

[thegreekdog]

All that's required for "reading comprehension" is an adequate level of intelligence, which is really independent of the major chosen by the student. Being a history major perhaps made you more accustomed to long hours spent reading, but that doesn't necessarily make you a better reader or better at reading comprehension. Besides, have you ever actually tried to read a scientific journal article? Requires at least as much reading comprehension as your average court decision

I have read scientific journals, the barrier to my reading comprehension comes from a lack of vocabulary and background knowledge. Speaking of court decisions, have you read some of the recent Supreme Court decisions? They are upwards of 200 pages long. Stupid Supreme Court.

[Metsfanmax]

All that's required for "reading comprehension" is an adequate level of intelligence, which is really independent of the major chosen by the student. Being a history major perhaps made you more accustomed to long hours spent reading, but that doesn't necessarily make you a better reader or better at reading comprehension. Besides, have you ever actually tried to read a scientific journal article? Requires at least as much reading comprehension as your average court decision

I have read scientific journals, the barrier to my reading comprehension comes from a lack of vocabulary and background knowledge. Speaking of court decisions, have you read some of the recent Supreme Court decisions? They are upwards of 200 pages long. Stupid Supreme Court.

The same is true for why people have difficulty with law articles. It is not that the subject matter is necessarily complex, it's that understanding the reasoning requires a thorough background in the cases that set the precedents for the current one.