Anybody else get the impression that people were a lot better educated 100-200 years ago...

I don't disagree that modern universities are mostly glorified trade schools.

I'm saying that a classical education is not useless and that education is not aimed solely about teaching you a job.

I'm >that education is not aimed solely about teaching you a job.
(or rather, should not be)

Yeah but that's just like you're opinion man. In modern society knowing Java and C+ is more valuable than knowing Greek and Latin. As easy as it is to pontificate on the immeasurable blessings of a well-rounded classical education and the earnest pursuit of knowledge for its own sake unless you're sitting on a trust fund it's simply not a viable path for the vast majority of people.

You are a libertarian, aren't you?
Money is not the only thing that matters in life.

>leftist

You're getting hung up on values you dumbass. OP asked a question about what changed in education and you're prattling about your personal ideals. It's an irrelevant opinion. The question was what changed in universities and you're saying "the change is bad". It's a response that does not follow.

They were lot more generalists than today. But we have tons of specialists whose knowledge far outstrip any from past 100-200 years.

OP said
>Is it just me or people of authority and power were better educated 100-200 years ago?

Then you answered that Universities changed their approach and education nowadays is more vocational. But you also said that
>these skills become increasingly useless in

And I disagreed specifically with this point, which you apparently defended in this post

OP is comparing the education of people of authority and power. The political elite. He is not comparing Harvard graduates today (where you can find, for example, students with a great knowledge of physics but a very poor knowledge of other areas) vs Harvard graduates 200 years ago.

He is comparing John Quincy Adams with Obama or Romney.

Only a person who never grew up poor has the luxury of having such an opinion. The proletariat don't need your misguided bourgeois zeal, they need money. Get the fuck out of this discussion, Trust Fund Tommy.

Obviously. University education has moved more and more towards specialization simply because you HAVE to specialize to be able to contribute in your field. In antiquity, if you were a philosopher, you probably knew pretty much everything there is to know in the scholarly field. Back in renaissance most knowledge at university level was common to everyone so educated. 200 years ago a naturalist would know large swathes of geology, biology, physics and chemistry, and still have time to learn extensively about classical philosophy, theology, classical literature and so on. Now? You have to spend 3 years learning about your chosen discipline at a general level to get a bachelor's degree, then two years learning about a specific subject within the said discipline to get a master's degree, and still spend several years further specializing before you gain a doctorate. And this is all just so you have all the knowledge needed to meaningfully contribute to that awfully narrow specialization.

Now imagine universities a hundred or two hundred years from now unless something fundamental changes...

Yes the value of those skills are greatly diminished from 1750 to 2017. Many of the things learned in a classical education were for the purpose of fitting in or entering into a 'high society' that no longer exists. Others like being able to navigate by the stars or recite the Iliad are practically entirely useless for anything other than mere party tricks. For better or worse a classical education in the modern day does not prepare its pupils for success in the same way it might have 250 years ago.

>John Quincy Adams
>traveled a lot as a child learning few different languages and diplomacy
>graduated from Harvard
>studied/practiced law

>Obama
>undergrad in political science
>graduated from Harvard law school
>taught/became president at harvard for 10 years
>taught constitutional law at University of Chicago's for 12 years
>as well as being a civil rights attorney

Obama's credential seems similar to John Quincy Adams, but again, he has much more specialized knowledge with regards to law/constitution/etc

Was Diogenes a rich man all his life?

Again, you are only looking at education as something which has as its only aim "making you more money", be it by making you enter a high society or by giving you better jobs. You have a limited view.

We are not comparing credentials, but education. John Quincy Adams had a much better education than Obama (not Obama's fault)

Other than multiple languages John Quincy Adams learned as a child, Obama had a much better education records.

Quincy had 2 years with high ed stuff at Harvard.

Obama studied, graduated, became professor, president of Harvard law school for nearly 10 years. Then another 12 more years at a University as a Professor of law, then few other law schools.

I'm not comparing credentials, but the kind of education they had. John Quincy Adams had a better education in the humanities than Obama had. And again, this is not Obama's fault.

Excuse me gentlemens, but Donald J Trump actually, throughout his life, his two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard and, as everyone knows, went down in flames. He went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star....to President of the United States (on his first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!

Obama had 4 years undergrad as political science with international/english language specialities.
He got JD from Harvard after 4 years. Taught 12 years at a university. Then taught for 8 more years.

Obama had BETTER EDUCATION than John Quincy Adams. John Quincy Adams learned classical languages like latin/greek in Harvard.

Since Political Science is part of humanities as well as classical studies, Obama had BETTER HUMANITIES education than John Quincy Adams as well.

This is however, John Quincy Adam's fault. He lived in a different time.

Again, I'm not comparing number of years of education or the name of the disciplines they studied, but rather the quality of education. Humanities education nowadays is poorer than it was a couple of centuries ago.

This is not a case of "the past was always better". Science education nowadays is much better, for example.

>Humanities education nowadays is poorer than it was a couple of centuries ago.
On what are you basing that, exactly? Or is it just because it's narrower?

Obama has low IQ though, so one year of education for adams was worth like 30 years for obummer

intellectualtakeout.org/blog/what-ivy-league-students-were-studying-250-years-ago

Lol. Yeah man 1488. Trump ruleeees

Are you saying language studies 100-200 years is better than it is today? Field of linguistics wasn't even a thing back then, John Quincy Adam had no idea on the theories of how languages/grammars work properly. Any linguistics class today totally outcalsses anything from 100-200 years ago.

You're just set on the whole "the past was always better", there's no explanation for such an ignorant view.

I also watch le rick and morty, wubba lubba vote for Bernie!

> be it by making you enter a high society or by giving you better jobs.
I'm talking about general success you doofus. It doesn't mean "making money" it means preparing an individual for life outside of university.

They didn't have the internet to keep looking at cat pictures all day.

Tbf classics were ALWAYS reserved for the elite classes who had LEISURE. This idea of the poor reading classics is a total historical fiction and something that uropian socialists dreamed up (basically the cultural equivalent of everyman livung in economic signity)

He has no basis. He's just a romanticist sperg.

>Obama
Barry Sotero. Legal name. Never showed proff of legally changing name to BHO.

>undergrad in political science
Actually it was International Relations, minor in PS.

>graduated from Harvard law school
3 years at Occidental, 3 years at Columbia, 3 years at Harvard.

>taught/became president at harvard for 10 years
Nope. Never President of Harvard. Was an editor of the Harvard Law Journal, then served as President, for one term, of The HL Journal.

>taught constitutional law at University of Chicago's for 12 years
Nope. 4 years as an assistant lecturer, 6 years as a senior lecturer. One class per term.

>as well as being a civil rights attorney
Worked as an associate at a 13 man law firm that specialized neighborhood economic development and did some civil rights litigation. Obama's name was attached to 1 case in his 11 year the at the firm, the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, the law firm retained 90% of the court agreed judgement.
He surrendered his law license in 2007.

It is not just a hunch. There is strong evidence that people were more intelligent during the Victorian era.
phys.org/news/2013-05-victorian-era-people-intelligent-modern-day-counterparts.html

Someone wrote an infamous book about this.

...

Seems like the stuff you'd get today here, maybe without the focus on Civil Governemnt and Physiology being replaced by Biology.
And of course, a much lesser focus on battles and war in History, to be substituted by understanding historical governmental system and societal change, thank G'd.

t. non-american

Yes they were both better read, and more practically educated. A man could build a log cabin, skin a deer, and go inside and read the greeks and drink the wine he made.

[citation needed] or at the very least state your argument faggot

Dont know about that, but people were definitely smarter in the 90s. Theres even a study that confirms this, saying avg IQ dropped by 10 pts since the 90s.

But could they write 150 words only by using emojis in under 10 seconds on their smartphone?

link please?

I can only find stuff that directly contradicts your claim.

Just google "average iq is decreasing".

It's not just your impression. This for example is the Harvard admission exam from 1869: graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvardexam.pdf
You see they require people to already understand Greek, Latin, have a solid knowledge of geometry, etc. Nowadays with the schools being just diploma mills existing to milk hefty student loan cash from the government and the students, university education is a fucking joke, especially in the humanities.