Langan seems to have a low opinion of Academia, but is it accurate?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yup...I had to kinda paint in broad brushes. If you're my age and went through an education degree in some countries (inc. Australia), there is a fair bet you'd learn about Piaget's developmental theories, Gardner's theories on multiple intelligences (which is somewhat what you are alluding to here), the introduction of standardised testing, federal curriculum frameworks...

And these were all thrown at teaching grad students, and they were left to try and work out how they coherently slotted together. Of course, they don't. Not really. But teaching was an area where people were strongly encouraged to accept the 'latest research', etc.
Frustrated me no end.

Anywhoo, yes...my earlier post was simplistic intentionally, as I was just trying to get the broad concepts across.

Here is the joke about everything is one of the most simple sentence possible:
Everything is the set of all cases of being in a sense for same, similar and/or different senses for all same, similar and/or different understandings and that is also being in a sense.

Now the further joke is that all of those words are cognitive abstracts and not concretes like e,g, the word "stone".
But give me as class of 16 years old and maybe one in a hundred will get that as me. Now for the rest some might get it over time and some really don't need to learn that, because they can get a good enough life otherwise.
Yet for the ideal of an informed citizen we all need it, but we can't do that in practice. That is the dilemma of throw education at everybody.

Yeah, I have read too many books even for my own good.