[QUOTE=Sattua]
… And I am definitely of the opinion that knowing a little biology is much more important than knowing ANY music theory or astronomy at all…
[/QUOTE]
I am curious as to why you believe this. Are you saying that a knowledge of biology is more likely to be useful to a scientist in another field, or to real world applications, or what?
I think it’s more likely to be directly applicable to yourself. If you know a little bit about animal physiology, it really helps you to see through the quacks and snake-oil. It helps you be healthier, and to help your family be healthier, and that helps society as a whole.
[QUOTE=Sattua]
I think it’s more likely to be directly applicable to yourself. If you know a little bit about animal physiology, it really helps you to see through the quacks and snake-oil. It helps you be healthier, and to help your family be healthier, and that helps society as a whole.
[/QUOTE]
Not the answer I would have expected, but interesting nonetheless. Thanks.
[QUOTE=Sattua]
A couple of subject areas that are new, since the Trivium and Quadrivium were the be-all and end-all, are calculus, chemistry, and biology–specifically cell biology and genetics. And I am definitely of the opinion that knowing a little biology is much more important than knowing ANY music theory or astronomy at all.
And there’s a lot more history now than there was then, too.
[/QUOTE]
I would definitely agree that a ‘modern equivalent’ includes a good general knowledge of history and science, which should also come before college. Math up to, say, Algebra II goes without saying, right? (Calculus would be great, but that can be moved up to college. And lots of us are just not that good at math; I stopped at trig and have found that to be pretty good.)
Biology is a great example of a subject that every modern person should have a working knowledge of, though it’s only recently that we’ve learned much about it. It’s a basic requirement (and has the advantage of having many facets that can be started at age 6 or so, so it’s a great elementary-age subject which can profitably be studied right into adulthood).
:rolleyes: Operation Ripper I’ll make sure my 18 year old self gets your memo. One thing I am always amazed by is the ability of a person to be so condescending when it is they who missed the point.
Sattua I would have to disagree with you about prioritizing biology above music theory and astronomy, particularly for the reasons mentioned in OP link about number in time and number in space and time. Biology doesn’t really cover the bases that those two cover so cannot be considered a substitute. I do agree with you that it is important, and well worth learning, I am finding my neurology class endlessly fascinating, but it doesn’t fulfill the same role in any way as those two would.
Basically, I have found my way to the point of asking this question through esoteric studies, studying mysticism and such, and in the course of that have found myself becoming increasingly interested in linguistics, cognitive science, chemistry, physics etc… and am looking for a good foundation for a broad knowledge-base. I sort of intuitively know what I hope to get out of it, but I also know that I have reached an insurmountable obstacle at my current level of development.
Right now my fancy is Cognitive Neuroscience, and I know I have a ways to go before getting into that very effectively.
Dangermom I didn’t do too well at Algebra and Trig in HS, which is actually a part of my dissatisfaction with schooling. I could do Algebra I in my head when other students were struggling, but then when the higher stuff came around and I couldn’t really do it, I had no clue of how to interface with it, and my teachers were no help whatsoever. Algebra II and Trig was one class in my HS, and I think I drew the worst teacher I could have, because two of my best friends who had another teacher were getting it just fine.
Thudlow Boink I am not so interested in getting a liberal arts degree. What I am looking for here more specifically is an idea of what subjects I need so I can know which ones I need to take as classes, and which I can study on my own and test out of, because I sort of have an idea of where I want to go with it, and would rather spend a couple years doing it myself than paying tuition and adhering to a schedule, so that I can eventually go for a Masters.
Right now I am studying for my Massage Therapy degree, which is an Associates, then I think I am going to go for my Masters in Chinese Medicine, and then after that switch gears back to western and get some psychology and other cognitive stuff. Sattua’s recommendations will help me a great deal with the linguistics portion. As the Chinese Medicine program focuses entirely upon its specialization there wouldn’t be math or language classes really, except some Chinese for medical terms, so I am trying to see what gaps I can fill in.
[QUOTE=Operation Ripper]
Nothing personal, but frankly this is crazy talk, only really applicable in nations hosting Cultural Revolutions. You would probably know this if you had gone to college.
Rest assured, it was a terrible, terrible time-wasting mistake. For some reason you seem to be trying to rationalize ignorance, of all things.
This is surprisingly, given the content of your post thus far, true. It’s just unfortunate it took you ten years to figure out what you are interested in.
Again, back to the crazy talk. These curricula may be considered a “classical education,” but you may be surprised to learn that in the past few thousand years we have discovered other, possibly more important, more useful areas of study. Check out all the definitions of “classical” to perhaps broaden your apprehension of the word. Again, you would probably know this already if you had gone to college.
In sum, unless you are a remarkably talented individual, aka Michael Chabon, or a dilettante, aka Paris Hilton, there are probably other more substantive curricula for you to consider if you are going back to school. How about a Nursing track? Again, nothing personal, but perhaps you should revisit this topic after you finish your sophomore year, like the rest of us. 
[/QUOTE]
While I might agree that the OP has a strange suspicion of institutionalized education, the condesention and ridicule you are showing to those of us without college degrees is rude and uncalled for.
You might want to look into my alma mater, St. John’s College, with campuses in Annapolis, MD, and Santa Fe, NM. Its program is specifically designed to provide a classical liberal arts education. (Note the seven books in the seal at the top of the Web site’s home page.) I’ll let you read about the program yourself, only adding that if you already are committed to an undergraduate program, St. John’s offers a similar program in its Graduate Institute, leading to a Master’s Degree.
I’d be happy to answer any questions you have about St. John’s unique program.
And if you don’t want to do either of these programs, you might still find some interesting information in the description of the program that would help you pursuing your own studies.
[QUOTE=Eonwe]
While I might agree that the OP has a strange suspicion of institutionalized education, the condesention and ridicule you are showing to those of us without college degrees is rude and uncalled for.
[/QUOTE]
As I said, I was referring to how I felt at 18. That now that I have made the decision I do not regret it because I might have gotten lost in the institution at that time, and that is why I feel like revisiting education now is something I am more interested in because I can guide my own process by among other things soliciting answers from people on the internet as to what a classical education would be comprised of in terms of the modern body of knowledge.
zhongguorenmin Thanks for that exhaustive list.
commasense Sounds interesting. I am from New Mexico, who knows, maybe I’d be into studying in Santa Fe. I’m checking out.
Would the modern equivalent of a classical education cover the definition of a run-on sentence, and how to avoid writing one?
[QUOTE=Dewey Finn]
Would the modern equivalent of a classical education cover the definition of a run-on sentence, and how to avoid writing one?
[/QUOTE]
Certainly.
OK. That’s a good thing.
[QUOTE=Sattua]
If you want the state-of-the-art, then you want a red Cambridge book on Syntax, the most recent version of which was I think written by Andrew Radford. These books do assume that you know what the parts of speech are, and have some general idea that verbs take arguments, but are otherwise suitable for beginners.
[/QUOTE]
I was wondering what book you are referring to.
Amazon has:
Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics) by Andrew Radford
Transformational Grammar: A First Course (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics) by Andrew Radford
Transformational Syntax: A Student’s Guide to Chomsky’s Extended Standard Theory by Andrew Radford (Paperback - Jan 29, 1982)
Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction by Andrew Radford (Paperback - Aug 28, 1997)
and finally, (and it’s red) Syntax (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics) by P. H. Matthews (Paperback - Sep 19, 1981)