One student in that crowd knowing the answer to who ran against Washington would have derailed the whole potency of that SDS speaker, and if he could adequately explain how and why that came about historically, the argument for allowing or honoring the e******n in Viet Nam might have been defeated--and then SDS would have been the disillusioned ones.

It is also an important fact in understanding how even democracy make good and bad exceptions to their ideals. There are no Democrats running in the upcoming e******n for any positions.

Believing that it is not a true e******n with opposition, that fact about Washington would have saved me from embarrassing arguments.

It is sometimes surprising how some trivia can have vital or at least relevant value in a discussion. And what's wrong with looking deeply, not just closely, into all of it?

I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting. That it is too late and were already doomed or that perhaps sampling bikini clad co-eds on the beach may not be a true sampling?

I don't see common core going away anytime soon so why don't we insist on certain number of credits be in American history. Some of the facts may get twisted but we still fought the British in the revolutionary war, the civil war was over states rights & s***ery and the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

Some students are doing very well, some in the middle and some not so much and often made examples of by various special interests. I am becoming convinced that the primary thing one must exhibit in order to graduate college—any college—is persistence. Some of the dumbest people I know are college grads and some college grads I know are some of the smartest people I know.

In my opinion, to pass any history course doesn’t require much knowledge or understanding only a reasonably good short-term memory and some persistence.

I am in total agreement with your statement, “We cannot have a democratic republic when all people know about freedom and rights is what they hear in media sound bites.” However I don’t know how to fix it.

Are you a teacher?

"

When I was attending college (late '60's-early '70's), I took a class in public speaking and debate. One of the prof's favorite quirks was to, half-way into a debate, have the debaters change points of view (switch sides) and resume the debate. Talk about scrambling to avoid train wreaks! Everyone, in the class, got caught unprepared, at least once. Once was enough for me. After that one time, I made sure I could present any side of an argument; just let me know when to switch sides. I have no idea when Munger made his statement, but either my prof got it from Munger, or Munger got it from my prof.

The point of the exercise was to make sure the debaters know BOTH sides of the topic of their debate, not just the side assigned to them to learn. And, the prof told us that his teaching us this lesson would serve us well all through life and business. He was as right as rain. I've lost count of the number of times the point of view I initially thought to be the correct one was, after investigating the other side, was the less logical and worse position to have.

To add another observation toward this particular topic, I find it odd that those participating in this thread, who denounce liberal arts colleges and their students, are the very ones that are partaking in this, a very liberal arts debate/discussion, on a very liberal arts subject - politics.

"

When I was attending college (late '60's-early '70's), I took a class in public speaking and debate. One of the prof's favorite quirks was to, half-way into a debate, have the debaters change points of view (switch sides) and resume the debate. Talk about scrambling to avoid train wreaks! Everyone, in the class, got caught unprepared, at least once. Once was enough for me. After that one time, I made sure I could present any side of an argument; just let me know when to switch sides. I have no idea when Munger made his statement, but either my prof got it from Munger, or Munger got it from my prof.

The point of the exercise was to make sure the debaters know BOTH sides of the topic of their debate, not just the side assigned to them to learn. And, the prof told us that his teaching us this lesson would serve us well all through life and business. He was as right as rain. I've lost count of the number of times the point of view I initially thought to be the correct one was, after investigating the other side, was the less logical and worse position to have.

To add another observation toward this particular topic, I find it odd that those participating in this thread, who denounce liberal arts colleges and their students, are the very ones that are partaking in this, a very liberal arts debate/discussion, on a very liberal arts subject - politics.

You have a little known fact you know and no one else cares very much about. How do you think they would be better citizens if they did know that fact?

The has been much criticism of our schools and universities for requiring the memorizations of a bunch of facts, most of which are irrelevant and or questionable, instead of teaching them to think.

You may have noticed that the majority of comments on this site strongly suggest an absence of critical thinking sk**ls? The lack of critical thinking sk**ls together with some more or less true facts seems to cause much emotion in people who have not been educated to think for themselves.

You learn basic facts in elementary, and secondary schools and critical thinking at universities. I found one of my sons comments rather interesting. He just graduated from UW Madison with a degree in political science. His roommate graduated with a degree in environmental science. My son said his roommate learned a lot of facts but not how to apply those facts in any critical thinking manner.

These college students need to learn the facts before they get to a university and there learn how to critically think for themselves.