Is this? No subjects. Degrees that are are and science. Is the end of true intellectual thought at hand anon?
http://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/25-things-that-will-be-obsolete-by-2025/
>>8136320
>Learning styles
>The genius factor
>Right/left brain
Good fucking riddance. Can't wait for 2025.
Also, why every read this futurology shit? It's probably wrong--it's definitely wrong. Ten years from now, my peers who endorse all of this shit will be the ones in academia. They're gonna keep that fire alive.
>>8136320
>1. Traditional subjects
>We’re living in an increasingly multi-disciplinary world, so why shouldn’t our majors reflect that? In the next ten years, we’ll start to see less Biology, Math, English and more Big Data, Creative Studies, and Decision Sciences.
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh wait, you were serious?
[math] \bf{ HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA } [/math]
>>8136320
>5. Tracking
>In their book, 50 Myths and Lies That Threaten America’s Public Schools, Berliner and Glass explain that tracking, or separating students according to academic ability, provides little to no benefit for low-achieving students and, at best, modest academic benefits for high-achieving students:
I don't even
>>8136320
>the Finns are teaching topics like the European Union
That is absolutely horrifying.
>>8136353
They should compare Math55 to an introductory math course at a typical state college.
>>8136320
They're entirely wrong that these will be obsolete, but many of these things would be good changes
>The genius factor
Needs to go, people believe far too much in essential traits of people. I've always said people good at math are just obsessed and think about it all of the time; people "who can't do math" simply give up and don't try.
>The right brain/left brain paradigm
No comment needed
>Traditional subjects
This is stupid, "traditional" subjects will always be around, what they mean to say is "we're teaching geopolitics above hard subjects", which is fine for your average idiot.
>Learning styles theory
Once I learned everyone is exactly the same, I started learning much faster. There's no magic trick to it. It's just work.
>>8136353
What they mean is, throwing all of the A students into one class doesn't do anything to help them learn, but it's really bad on dumb students to be segregated from the smart students.
Which makes sense and is a perfectly valid observation
>>8136320
That shit is the product of a commie fetishizing, humanities "learning", hack philosophist citing, liberal arts college attending, black cock sucking, hybrid driving, pot smoking, vegan eating, math demonizing, jealousy rotten and dadies credit card buying sheltered princess mindset which can be easily dismissed as complete retardation completely dehected from reality.
The point of the world being multidisciplinary alone is absolutely stupid. Every student can tell you that multidisciplinary is a codeword for future burger flipper, because nobody needs some fucktard who applies for a programming job with his basics in python and additional introductory courses in 5 languages, creative gender interpretation, expressive minority apologizing and abstract health theory.
The world needs specialists who know what the fuck they are doing. Autists who breathe and eat their major, while also having some know-how in complimentary subjects.
What a time to be alive, the world is literally crumbling apart.
>>8136388
wew lad
Fucking postmodernists are at it again.
>>8136393
>stem autists think they understand people
>>8136381
Except that's not what the article says.
It says low-achieving students get little to no benefit (i.e. they don't do worse) and high-achieving students get modest benefits (i.e. they do better).
Sounds like a win-win.
>>8136362
It's not true though
T. Finn
