Maybe his professor isn’t one of the most ones.
You could fill one page with the answer if you write really big. The answer is mammon.
The answer - Because traditional American values gives preference to individual liberty and reliance on market forces over collective security and reliance on governmental forces as the means of dealing with many social problems.
I would suggest that you demonstrate a knowledge of the relevant OECD stats. Some of them do support a naive interpretation of the question, such as infant mortality. The US really does not look good on that one. But others have a more nuanced interpretation. For example, US education often comes out looking less than stellar, but the US has free universal public education, which is not necessarily the case in other OECD countries. Be prepared to concede some statistics that really aren’t favorable to the US, but discuss how they are offset by other statistics or aspects of our legal system that place a high value on individual freedom.
It’s loaded because of the “more severe social problems” part, which turns it into a value judgment. But the prof could be trying to be provocative, and it doesn’t mean Doors fails if he answers the question the way he sees fit. He’s smart enough to make his case.
Tell that to the Indians.
We suck because of our freedom!
How does “individual freedom” explain poverty, lack of health care and worse education. For that matter, what freedoms does America have that Canada and the UK don’t have?
I still don’t understand why the question is problematic. What does the professor say in the question that isn’t true?
These points are biased in their insinuations and can be interpreted several ways.
Worse education? - U.S. primary and secondary public schools aren’t universally known as being all the great but the U.S. is paradise when you get to the college level and by graduate school, it is the main game in town. We shifted our educational focus to the top end which has some nice benefits for society like many of the best scientists, engineers, and great thinkers of all types. That is self-evident from the insane amounts of innovation in all fields that the U.S. has produced for well over a century. There is no reason to frame the question so that it only includes one type of education and not the ones that the U.S. excels in.
Worse health care? - The U.S. has outstanding health care as long as you have good health insurance or are wealthy and can pay for it out of pocket. Me and my family have needed cutting edge medical care costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past few years and I would rather be in the U.S. than anywhere else for that (especially the Boston area). No cost or resource was spared. Everyone has health care if they can get to an emergency room. The system isn’t ideal in its efficiency but most people do have health insurance and access to good care in a timely fashion.
More violence? - This is cherry picking part of of a greater problem. The murder rate in the U.S. tends to be higher than many comparable countries but the overall crime rate tends to be much lower. Your chances of being a crime victim in some place like England are much higher than in the U.S. Burglary and theft including home invasions while the victims are home are much higher than they are in the U.S. Murder is a lot more rare in terms of risks for innocents and is usually isolated to certain groups and places. It is easy to turn this question around and ask why Western Europe has allowed itself to become so overrun with criminality that it is a daily risk for residents and tourists alike. If you are walking around France at night and get a little chilly, just look for a car fire that rioting Muslims have set and hang out there. Why does France have a minority population that feels so oppressed by society that they are forced to set car fires on a regular basis? Why is the French government unable to appease them and control this situation?
In conclusion, why are England and France so much worse than the U.S. and Canada?
It’s hard for a student to believe in objectivity when a large number of teachers make no effort to be objective. Not to bring up the dreaded name to divert the discussion, but if a student is taking an International Politics class where the teacher despises President Bush and makes every effort to say so but the student is a Republican, how can that person in today’s environment believe that the teacher can be objective?
This guy comes from the West Coast. He participated in the 1999 Seattle protests during the WTO meeting. In our discussions he has yet to agree with a single thing that I have said. He lives a different life and he comes from a different world. Should that cloud my thinking? Under ideal circumstances, no, but I’ve had too many teachers that fail the objective test to be entirely confident that he will be fair with me. I believe he will, but there’s that little bit of apprehension that never quite goes away.
Asserting a value judgment rather than asking for a comparison is not what I would consider to be a legitimate question if thought is required. Why should I have to refute something that is not necessarily true (as others have shown) when it would have been more appropriate to make the case on its merits?
He did ask the question, and I bit the bullet and, while not driving a stake through his heart, managed to raise a few objections. After the test I said to him that he had to know that the question would get me wound up, and he laughed and asked me how many pages of Rand he got this time. He’s done this before with article rading responses and I went to town on it. I think he prefers a challenge, and I try to give it to him.
Nevertheless, my issue is the appropriateness of the question and the weight that it carries being the final exam. That is a fine question to instigate discussion, but as a test question? Not so much.
I had a government prof during the Clinton administration who hated Clinton and loved Rush Limbaugh. I didn’t whine like a little bitch about it and it didn’t affect how he evaluated papers. I got an A on a paper I did excoriating DOMA – something the prof supported.
Why do you think the question was inappropriate for a test?
This is so untrue it is laughable. If you want, I can produce within 10 minutes a list of at least two dozen of “feel good” treaties to which the US is a party. Give me a day and I can probably get into three digits.
Unless you mean that countries generally don’t sign treaties they oppose, which should be obvious to anyone who has thought about it for two seconds.
Good for you.
Because it had the same import as “Why are you an asshole? Discuss.” It assumes facts not in evidence and it favors people that agree because it tells the students the viewpoint of the professor and few have the courage to go against the grain. I usually don’t care, so I do. But being a final, the grade carries too much weight and therefore needs a more circumspect answer to insure the desired outcome.
The question doesn’t even pass the SDMB OP test: would I post that? Perhaps some of you would, and a debate would likely occur, but would I? Not even on a bet. It makes no case, it only asserts “facts” as if the matter is settled, which it certainly is not, not even amongst sociologists.
Seems to me that even though the question betrays the professor’s bias, there is still enough foundation in fact that that you could formulate a decent answer. Why does the United States tolerate tens of millions of Americans having no health insurance? There’s an actual, specific reason there that you could certainly cite. Heck, FriarTed gave you one plausible answer above.
See? Was that so hard?
What a scathing indictment! I hear they’re all tree-hugging troglodytes out there.
You seem to have a very different idea of how education should work than I do - because it seems like a fine question to me. The prof is trying to get you to show that you have factual information about various countries, can compare and contrast the info, and then can form a coherent argument based on the facts and comparisons.
How do you think school, and social science classes should work? What’s your ideal class? What do you think you should be learning? How do you think it should be tested?
I didn’t make a scathing indictment. I simply pointed out that we have different perspectives based upon location and experience, in the same way that I have different expectations of society than someone from an urban area.
Why are you trying to pick a fight, exactly?
Education and indoctrination are two different things. The teacher has every right to interject his opinions into his teachings as long as he is willing to entertain alternatives. Critical thinking doesn’t come from rote memorization, and for something as subjective as social sciences what is taught should not be treated as Holy Writ.
How do I think it should be tested? Hell if I know. I have particularly strong opinions about the value (or lack thereof) of school, and I’ve made no secrets about it. I would like to learn something of value, though. That would be a nice change of pace.
My ideal class is something that I want to take, not something I am obligated to take. I think that I should be learning what I need to succeed. Learning that the world is imperfect and filled with deviance doesn’t tell me anything I don’t already know. Learning the teacher’s solutions is interesting inasmuch as it is his opinion and the trading of opinions is what helps to form a consensus, but I can do that right here on the cheap at the same level.
What would have been “something of value”?
What is something you wanted to take or that you needed to succeed? Also, as a side note, why aren’t you taking those classes?
From my perspective, it seems that the prof wasn’t trying to tell you that the world is imperfect. Of course you know that. He was trying to get the class members to perform an analysis. Now it could be that your analytical skills are far beyond most of the class members, so the question was below your skill level. I don’t think this question was about rote memorization of the facts or even the professor’s point of view. I think it is about interpreting data and backing up your interpretation - which is a skill that many people do end up using to succeed.
Something I didn’t already know that I deem to be worth remembering.
Because I’ve been preoccupied with taking required gen-ed classes mandated by the state of Pennsylvania.
Fair enough. I suppose I should keep in mind that I’m a bit older than the other students and have a bit more knowledge, but I try to ignore that because it’s incredibly patronizing and condescending, and I’m not too keen on that.
School is just not my place, I guess. Two more semesters and I’m history. Then, once the degree barrier to entry has been eliminated, I can start doing something I really want to do. What that is has yet to be determined, but I do know that it won’t be imposed upon me, which is what makes these four wasted years worthwhile.
Seems to me you are trying to pick a fight. Really, what did you expect the responses to this thread to be? Do you have anything to say about my research (thus demonstrating that you can present and defend an opinion well enough to pass a college course), or do you simply not take your education seriously? If the latter is true, I’m sure there’s somebody else who will gladly take your spot who actually wants to grow intellectually. It’s these sorry sobbing “I’m oppressed because my teachers are Democrats!” wackos who have been slowly turning colleges and universities into feeling-fests where it’s rude to offer an opinion and challenge one’s students to defend their own, thus watering down the entire educational experience for those of us who want to grow and be intellectually stimulated, and who aren’t in it just to get a stamped and signed certificate soaked with the tears of the repressed. Rather ironic for a group of people that overlaps strongly with the group that sees the PC police behind every tree, isn’t it?
Oh, wait, I forgot, you don’t care: you’re just here to pick up 28 units a year at a steady 2.0 and get your commission. Forward harch, then.