There's a guy in Australia who made some "history" book called the "Dark Emu’ that pushes the idea that Aboriginal Australians were not just hunter gatherers and that they had settlements , agriculture, aquaculture and food storage. His own self proclaimed motivation for writing this fake history is to "rebut the colonial myths that have worked to justify dispossession"
Just to give you an idea of how ridiculous this claim is that the Aboriginals had these type of advanced settlements. The Australian government once had to release a PSA video telling the Aboriginals not to sleep on the road or they might get run over by cars. Does this sound like the kind of people that would have had agriculture, aquaculture and food storage?
As you can expect though, this book got a lot of awards and gets promoted in libraries and schools
Which is why we demand they study the culture for two years. The first year will be bad anyway.
This is you explaining why college is over-priced.
Maybe instead of two years (one good, one bad), they should just have one good course.
The fun part about education and making it actually work is that it often requires time, repetition and experience gleaned from those first two. Usually the most common is to make the amateur errors and then learn why you did it.
The notion of "just make one good course" is how we get the opposite college issue. Of churning out degrees with woefully underqualified idiots who were given massive info to cram in before the test and then given a license without a care if they learned a thing.
I don't agree with that. I see the same thing in physics, and it's actually extremely detrimental (and frankly seems like it's emotionally conditioning people to: new information = automatically more true information, which is a Leftist indoctrination concept).
In a bad intro physics course, you'll learn about the "observer effect" where quantum particles flow like a wave until they they are "observed" in which case they kind of "choose" which path they took. Then in a later class, you have to unlearn bad information and be told: "there is no such thing as passive observation at the quantum level." But anyone who didn't take the advanced course (like the BA in Engineering students), was now successfully taught wrong information.
Instead, you must teach good information from the beginning. Yes, I understand and accept that the best way to teach students non-intuitive information is to get them to do an experiment, fail, try it the right way, and get a correct solution. However, that doesn't excuse starting them off with a poor rudimentary understanding that has to be unlearned.
If it really takes that long, stop making 2 one year courses, and make it a 1 two year course. Though, I'll bet it'll take less time if you don't have to unlearn wrong lessons.
I wasn't saying otherwise. You shouldn't teach wrongly, at least not in the long term (a one lecture long example can be effective). But that a fundamental to learning to being forced to confront your own bias, whether that's political or instinctual and then know why you thought it and how it made you wrong. Which means a lot of time letting someone be wrong for a period to make their fall from grace that much more strongly resonating.
For an example, during our Major Research Project semester we were basically given a short intro and then allowed to write survey related to our project. Which then was followed by a month of tearing into them by the professor about how leading and biased they were in specific ways that most people didn't even think about and wouldn't have without being shown a specific example of themselves doing it wrong. I can say for certain it helped me considerably in thinking about how research is conducted and why it is so, which is why I sperg out at so many "studies" that get posted around here, whether I agree with them or not.
Either way, the point isn't that "one bad course" is entirely a good thing. Only that there has to be some balance to give the necessary time and learning from bad experiences the ability to root if we want to actually educate people.
Otherwise we get Degree Mills like DeVry that just rush you through as fast as possible which technically gets you the necessary information but doesn't really accomplish anything.
Anth 101 has an entire section on how badly people screw up. Jokes are told, and we point out the mistakes. Those same students then do it.
It's like telling a guy his girlfriend is crazy, he might agree, but he's not learning by advice.
The bonus question on the final is: "Don't stick your dick in: ____"