If you were to rewrite school curriculum, what would you include?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Hypothetical question for you: Suppose you have full control over the primary and secondary education systems of your nation (that is, everything up to, but not including, college/university). You may entirely rewrite the curriculum to include whichever subjects you want, and cast out whichever you feel are worthless.

 

What would you include?

 

I'd start by casting out a lot of English literature and analysis and refocusing on composition, rhetoric, and argumentation. I'd also expand the teaching of world history, particularly the history of the past few hundred years -- I'd like a populace that understands why our nations have ended up the way they are.

[pwagen]

To be perfectly frank, there's not a lot I would change about our school system (Sweden). While there was a lot of it that was boring back then, I did get a very broad foundation and feeling for what the world looks like. Others might disagree, but I'm quite happy with how I was educated.

[jackson33]

PS/K/8; I would increase reading, comprehension, speaking/orientation, basic math, increasing skill levels to pass on to the fifth or sixth grades, that is actually hold students another year. Simultaneously from at least the 4th grade, I'd promote class segregation by either IQ or other testing and getting the best students, being with the best, worst with the worst. From there, even having opinions, it gets very complicated.

 

9/12th Rather than argumentation, maybe debate would work better, in that kids would be taught to argue any issue or point from either a pro or con understanding. I don't know what's being taught today, other than the weird things I read about, but here I think it would simply mean going back to the basics. Anyway, History meant a semester of State History, the rest of the year US History, followed by a year of World History with an emphasis on anything pertinent to American. For instance, once you get past the medieval period (1400's), things like the British Empire, exploration or even religions that eventually effect US History, are at least connected. My basic change under curriculum would happen in the 11th and 12th grades. Aptitude testing with parental/student guidance would determine a planned course, college, college major, some profession or none of the above.

[rktpro]

We already have a period where we debate-The language Lab period. We have a high quality language-lab. What I feel worst about my school is that some teachers don't actually teach well.

[imatfaal]

Generally. Critical thinking. Appreciation of literature rather than analysis. Earlier engagement with foreign languages. Compulsory core sciences, humanities, and mathematics. Politics - in a functional sense how does my country run?

 

From personal perspective/education. Far to much specialisation early on - by 12-y-o I had given up all history and geography - and others had given up all sciences. I think this has changed - well at least I hope it has.

[immortal]

If I had the priviledges to change the syllabus or the content of the educational system I would first change the way how science is being taught in our schools. It is very disappointing to know that even now many teachers still stick to the lamarckian view of evolution in which organisms are evolved through a teleological purpose like the development of the long necks of giraffe and they hold this misconception that since humans are depending too much on machines and not using their body parts they think that in the future years humans will have large heads with short, thin, weak hands and legs. I almost blindly believed in that crap when i was in school. The work of Natural selection is never expressed in schools and this kind of mis-information can not be tolerated. I would introduce a curriculum which will make students to have a scientific bent of mind where individual thinking is developed and students are free to raise questions making the class more interactive. Learning through interaction would induce long term memory changes in the brain since they will be subjected to strong sensitization when compared to learning through memorization.

 

I would also try to include a lot of chapters on literature. There are so many scholars who spend their whole life figuring out the truth and they express their ideas based on own personal experiences with such amazing language skills which is really astonishing and they takes us to a whole new world and it will take some time for us to come to normal terms after reading it. I wonder how many of us have such a capability and all their work will go unnoticed and majority of them will not be aware of it. It would be good if students are made aware of it with a small abstract of it which holds the same theme of the scholar according to their intellectual capability. This would considerably improve their language skills and their vocabulary. Language is very important since we comprehend this world through language, a good hold on language will lead to thought experiments in the mind and the expansion of knowledge. I still believe the reason why Aryans knew so much about the working of the universe and about ontology is because of their language 'Sanskrit' which helped them to have a completely different view of the world. Soft skills are important since our nation(India) is producing too many engineers but too little of them can be employable.

 

I would also go for history, and include some information about all the cultures of the world and philosophy to teach them good conduct and also a good programme on sex education is advisable to avoid pornography.

 

On an another note, do we want to see an another trail case like the one we had in the Dover high school about evolution/creationism? I think both sides of the argument should be taught and a direction has to be given on where the fallacy lies. Students should atleast have the wisdom to not to meddle science with metaphysical things.

Edited May 1, 2011 by savithru

[Ringer]

I came from a small school so these might be in schools and mine just didn't offer them, but I would like to see some sort of integration programs. How mathematics and science have been involved with literature and art (like through the looking glass) and vice versa. I also dislike how the science and math classes I was involved in less on memorizing and more on how and why things work the way they do. Then there's the whole standardized testing crap that could be scrapped.

 

I think something else that is important is the low pay of teachers. For as little as they are paid they are some of the most integral people in the development of children. They also tend to put in ridiculous hours to put together lesson plans, grading, extracurriculars, etc. Not to mention they have to put up with a lot of little brats all day.

[Marat]

The first thing I would do about North American secondary education would be to add another year to it, making it like the European Abitur/Matura system with people graduating at 19 rather than at 18. That would provide more room in the curriculum for secondary school courses which would, ideally, either provide students with a more solid grounding in critical thinking, or give them a taste of college majors they might want to try, so that they don't have to waste a year of university trying them 'for real' to discover that they are really not interested in that line of study.

 

Critical thinking courses I would add would include:

 

Introductory Logic

Introductory Philosophy

Philosophy of Science/Scientific Method

Introduction to understanding statistics

 

Enrichment courses I would add might include:

 

Psychology

Astronomy

Statistics

Anthropology

History of World Religions

 

Another thing that would be useful would be to reform the way English is taught. I occasionally grade student papers at the university level and I would guess that about 60% of students cannot write in a fully literate way, so I always wonder what people actually do during the one hour a day, five days a week, nine months a year, for the twelve years that they study their native language? If I read one more time a phrase like "For patients that are non-compliant with their medication regimen," using 'that' as the referent for animate objects like people, I think I'll explode!

[Athena]

Totally awesome fellows. Those were the most intelligent post about education I have seen in over 10 years on the Internet.

 

I am seriously intimidated now, because we have voices from Sweden and India and each excels in different areas of human development. It is one thing to judge what is the best education for my country, the US, and quite another to say what is best for the whole world. It would be a terrible loss if India stopped being India, or Sweden were no longer Swedish, or Germany German.

 

My biggest concern is the US has stopped being what it was. This rips my heart, and considering its importance as a world leader, perhaps we should ask ourselves how our position as world leader has changed? I am very thankful for Obama and Hilary because they are doing the best that can be done to get us back on track, except they are missing the education component of what makes a nation as it is.

 

What made each nation as it was, was in part resources and environment, and in part their dominant religion, and Savithru is so right, their language! The west has used linear logic and this promotes the advancement of technology. The east has used wholistic or cyclical logic and this is best for metaphysics. Surely we are doomed if we loose the logic of the east, because technology without the wisdom to use it is the worst thing that can happen. Better we all be ignorant farmers than for us to have technology without wisdom.

 

So I encourage each nation to be careful to preserve their uniqueness, and know, this comes through education. At one time, religion was the only education the masses had. Education in the sciences is a twenty century phenomena. In the US science was at first driven with a childlike discovery of the world and absolute heart warming thrill to know that through science we can save lives. While the US had some education in science, its main purpose was education for citizenship, and this became a federal mandate in a last ditch effort to prevent the Civil War. As we know, this did not prevent the Civil War. When the South realized what the North was doing though education, it began printing its own text books. Still even though education did not prevent the war, we continued to educate our children to make the US a united and strong Republic. This was liberal education and was modeled after Athens education for well rounded individual growth. Any education of democracy, must begin with Athens, I believe, and it should include the study of world religions.

 

I hate to do this, but jumping over a lot of important stuff. Germany was actually a leader in education, and for military reasons the US replaced its liberal education with Germany's model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose. Now everyone posting seems to favor this technological purpose of education, but what of humanity? Please, I caution you. Education is like a genii in a bottle. The defined purpose is the wish and the graduating students are the genii. Zeus' greatest fear was that with the technology of fire, man would discover all other technologies, and then rival the gods. Is not this what we have done? We are technological smart, but how wise are we? Only highly moral people can have liberty. How moral are we? There are two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people. Germany was known for being authoritarian, and we are now the nightmare of people living under bureaucracy that controls every aspect of our lives, that Tocqueville wrote of in 1835.

 

Once upon a time, every educated citizen in the US understood we defend our liberty by being moral people. Today the leaders of our financial system are so immoral they have taken down the economies of the world, and we elected a president who should probably on trial for war crimes. Enough, the first thing education must do, is prepare everyone for good moral judgment. We have gone from being perhaps the most moral nation in the world, to what we defended our democracy against, and we did this by changing the purpose of education for military reasons.

 

Marat, thank you!

 

If I read one more time a phrase like "For patients that are non-compliant with their medication regimen," using 'that' as the referent for animate objects like people, I think I'll explode!

 

This may be more important than you realize. I just recently had this argument with my family, and they totally shot me down, because the word "that" is in published literature. Using the word "that" instead of "who" has become acceptable, and I suspect this has everything to do with education for technology, and I would not be surprised if gas chambers did not become the solution to social problems.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Athena

[zapatos]

I would like to see an assessment done at some point to help determine what type of future is in store for the student, then lead the curriculum in that direction. At the least I think we need to determine if the student is likely to pursue college or not. If destined for college and a professional career then much of what I've seen outlined so far seems appropriate. But if the student is not likely to pursue or excel at college then perhaps the curriculum should focus on vocational studies.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Another thing that would be useful would be to reform the way English is taught. I occasionally grade student papers at the university level and I would guess that about 60% of students cannot write in a fully literate way, so I always wonder what people actually do during the one hour a day, five days a week, nine months a year, for the twelve years that they study their native language? If I read one more time a phrase like "For patients that are non-compliant with their medication regimen," using 'that' as the referent for animate objects like people, I think I'll explode!

 

If that is the worst problem you see, you should be thankful! I see so many run-on sentences, apostrophe abuses, and poor word choices that I have no time to consider details like "whom" vs. "who," or anything more complex.

[mississippichem]

What would you include?

 

I would make it to where algebra starts earlier so that students could get calculus earlier. Part of the problem with science education in the US is that we can't learn much physics without calculus, and calculus is usually one of the last math courses students take in high school. If they could get to calculus by their first year of highschool, then they could dive into a lot more physics/chemistry before college. Our problem is, we don't teach kids about the language of algebraic manipulation while their brains are still forming those language connections. Teach them early, make it as natural as talking or writing.

 

Also, I would do away with the "general science" curriculum in elementary and middle schools. It is a useless waste of time. Every year, the students would take a different specific science. 9 year old children may not understand deriving the equations of motion, but they can understand how to do simple [math]\sum \vec {F} = m \vec {a} [/math] problems or gram/mole conversions. Think if we had kids that new the basics of the laws of motion by high school! That way, we could offer more specialized science classes in high school like electronics, organic chemistry, or genetics (after taking stats, heh).

 

I'd start by casting out a lot of English literature and analysis and refocusing on composition, rhetoric, and argumentation. I'd also expand the teaching of world history, particularly the history of the past few hundred years -- I'd like a populace that understands why our nations have ended up the way they are.

 

I agree here. who cares what the author's purpose is? It always bothered me that English teachers speculate about unknowable intent and treat it as if it isn't just speculative opinion. Did you know William Faulkner!? How then can you know what he intended in the book?

 

What we need are students who know how to debate, persuade, argue gracefully, and defend their ideas. Literature has it's place, and I like Faulkner a lot; but why didn't I get more training in technical writing (which is what makes the world go 'round). Even future business students will need to know how write a proposal with quantitative arguments...You should finance my endeavor because our earnings potential is "X", last year we showed "Y" increase in profit margins as our debt to assets ratio dropped to "Z".

 

Interesting thread Cap'n.

[Mr Rayon]

I would include non-compulsory religious studies in the year 7-10 school curriculum (Australia).

Harder maths in year 7-10 and compulsory LOTE (Language other than English) throughout highschool with bonus points to those who do exceptionally well on their university entrance LOTE exams.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

A couple people have mentioned foreign languages, which reminds me of my biggest peeve with language education. I want it to start in elementary school, not in high school. I took Spanish classes in high school and got fed up with the teachers and constant memorization -- but if you spread out a foreign language through frequent use all through elementary school, it would be so much easier to learn. Particularly because small kids are already good at picking up languages.

[pwagen]

I can imagine it's very different in countries whose national language is a big one, like English or French. But back home, we started English classes when we were 10 I think, and nowadays they start at age 7. It really does help a lot to learn a foreign language, and EVERYBODY speaks English here. Maybe not fluently, but good enough to get around.

 

On top of that, we start learning a third language at age 13 (I think). Mostly either German or French, though there's an option to go with Spanish as well. Wouldn't want to change that either.

[Athena]

I would like to see an assessment done at some point to help determine what type of future is in store for the student, then lead the curriculum in that direction. At the least I think we need to determine if the student is likely to pursue college or not. If destined for college and a professional career then much of what I've seen outlined so far seems appropriate. But if the student is not likely to pursue or excel at college then perhaps the curriculum should focus on vocational studies.

 

Our IQ testing test a limited range of intelligence, because it is done for a purpose. This started with the 1958 National Defense Education Act, and the purpose was to help teachers identify which students are best suited for higher education. And let us be clear about this, it was done for military reasons. Identifying who might excel as an artist and become our next Michelangelo was not deemed necessary. Neither IQ testing nor education for technology, promotes this kind of intelligence.

 

Vocational training is technological education even if it stops with high school wood shop, which by the way has been cut out of the budget, because it is not deemed necessary by the military so it is not what the federal government is going to fund. Education can mean something besides preparing everyone for a job, and perhaps humanity is better served if we keep that in mind? Perhaps thousands of people are being cheated out an education and a good life, because it is not the best education for them. Not all of us excel in the subjects deemed necessary by the military.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Athena

[keelanz]

Hypothetical question for you: Suppose you have full control over the primary and secondary education systems of your nation (that is, everything up to, but not including, college/university). You may entirely rewrite the curriculum to include whichever subjects you want, and cast out whichever you feel are worthless.

 

What would you include?

 

I'd start by casting out a lot of English literature and analysis and refocusing on composition, rhetoric, and argumentation. I'd also expand the teaching of world history, particularly the history of the past few hundred years -- I'd like a populace that understands why our nations have ended up the way they are.

 

i like your suggestion of learning foreign languages from a younger age but not history, it is my view that history teaches prejudice and although there are great lessons to be learned from history it can be detrimental to ones outlook of the world in general.

 

i personally think foreign languages should be taught in england from the age of 7 and politics from the age of 11, i also think history should be a sub category of politics whereby it shows not only how we got to where we are but also how to go about changing what has been created for us.

 

oh yes and theoretical computation as a subcategory of algebra/calculus whenever it is deemed the individual is ready for it.

Edited May 1, 2011 by keelanz

[A Tripolation]

Not all of us excel in the subjects deemed necessary by the military.

 

Do you have any citations that support this conspiracy theory? I have a hard time viewing someone as "intelligent" simply because they can memorize dates in history, or write a literary analysis. Anyone can do that, in my opinion.

 

it is my view that history teaches prejudice and although there are great lessons to be learned from history it can be detrimental to ones outlook of the world in general.

 

You don't think that History teaches us valuable lessons and helps us to not make the same mistakes?

[Ringer]

Our IQ testing test a limited range of intelligence, because it is done for a purpose. This started with the 1958 National Defense Education Act, and the purpose was to help teachers identify which students are best suited for higher education. And let us be clear about this, it was done for military reasons. Identifying who might excel as an artist and become our next Michelangelo was not deemed necessary. Neither IQ testing nor education for technology, promotes this kind of intelligence.

 

Vocational training is technological education even if it stops with high school wood shop, which by the way has been cut out of the budget, because it is not deemed necessary by the military so it is not what the federal government is going to fund. Education can mean something besides preparing everyone for a job, and perhaps humanity is better served if we keep that in mind? Perhaps thousands of people are being cheated out an education and a good life, because it is not the best education for them. Not all of us excel in the subjects deemed necessary by the military.

 

Actually there are many different IQ test that test for different things and developed for different purposes. None of which follow your description or history. Here's some information. Not to mention our education system is was not designed to prepare someone for military nor are its curricula determined by the military.

[keelanz]

Do you have any citations that support this conspiracy theory? I have a hard time viewing someone as "intelligent" simply because they can memorize dates in history, or write a literary analysis. Anyone can do that, in my opinion.

 

 

 

You don't think that History teaches us valuable lessons and helps us to not make the same mistakes?

 

it has the potential too, but it also has the more immediate potential to give a sense of right (right as in materialistic ownership).

 

a simple example is: we beat the french, by right were better than the french.

 

EDIT: Also when were taught from a young age that king's got into power by assassination of the current monarchy, we go away with the sense that we ourselves could gain that power by the same means not with any sense of moral justice, atleast i presume most 10 year olds would.

 

ALSO i think music appreciation should have a bigger focus, we learn how to play music at school but not to analyse for our benefit what the artist is trying to express. (atleast at my school)

 

Edited May 1, 2011 by keelanz

[A Tripolation]

a simple example is: we beat the french, by right were better than the french.

 

I was never taught this. You were?

 

ALSO i think music appreciation should have a bigger focus, we learn how to play music at school but not to analyse for our benefit what the artist is trying to express. (atleast at my school)

 

I actually think we should limit art and music and focus more on language, logics, math, and science. Useful things.

[keelanz]

I was never taught this. You were?

 

 

 

I actually think we should limit art and music and focus more on language, logics, math, and science. Useful things.

 

in england we were taught about wars with Scotland, France, Germany, Spain and the US of A, we wasnt taught that by beating them we were better peoples, but at a young age i think this is an automatic presumption?

 

maybe our education systems are backwards because in my country we have 3 core subjects that dont stop until you reach the age of 16 and at which point your allowed to stop them but dont have to, they are(would you guess?); English, Maths & Science

 

so its my opinion we already have more than enough education in these area's even if perhaps you dont agree we are teaching the right aspects of these area's, the education system certainly already has these as the main subjects that you referred too.

 

i think as far as the music and the arts go we should have some subject that could be determined as sociological cultural arts which could encompass Music, Art and Sociology which might give people more of a sense of individualism as well as things like nationalism. When i was at school we were taught how to create music and analyse music in very much the same way, we wasnt really told to express our own opinions on what the music or art could represent, same applies for culture really. In a way i feel the system is creating clones, people are taught how to do things in very much the same way which in turn suffocates our individualism, therefor a subject area that lets people express themselves more openly aswell as showing the social aspects of that would be one i would add to my own curriculum

 

EDIT: the best way to learn from history is to edit out the names, this would allow us to still learn from our mistakes without all the bias which accompanies being right or wrong or being the writer of that history.

Edited May 2, 2011 by keelanz

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

EDIT: the best way to learn from history is to edit out the names, this would allow us to still learn from our mistakes without all the bias which accompanies being right or wrong or being the writer of that history.

I think this misses the point. I want to understand recent history (the past few hundred years or so) so I understand why the world is as it is today. When CNN or Fox are talking about conflicts in the Middle East or civil wars in Africa, I want to know why those conflicts developed and what historical events led up to them, so I can understand the current events better.

 

A public understanding of recent history could improve the public debate on foreign policy and political issues.

[keelanz]

I think this misses the point. I want to understand recent history (the past few hundred years or so) so I understand why the world is as it is today. When CNN or Fox are talking about conflicts in the Middle East or civil wars in Africa, I want to know why those conflicts developed and what historical events led up to them, so I can understand the current events better.

 

A public understanding of recent history could improve the public debate on foreign policy and political issues.

 

social evolution and education is the answer as with most history, i dont disagree with your wanting to understand our current political position through history, just how that position relates to you and history will no doubt create some form of bias especially if you look at it from the complete opposite angle, your now north african and learning why america is in your country, the bias will just breed.

[Athena]

in england we were taught about wars with Scotland, France, Germany, Spain and the US of A, we wasnt taught that by beating them we were better peoples, but at a young age i think this is an automatic presumption?

 

maybe our education systems are backwards because in my country we have 3 core subjects that dont stop until you reach the age of 16 and at which point your allowed to stop them but dont have to, they are(would you guess?); English, Maths & Science

 

so its my opinion we already have more than enough education in these area's even if perhaps you dont agree we are teaching the right aspects of these area's, the education system certainly already has these as the main subjects that you referred too.

 

i think as far as the music and the arts go we should have some subject that could be determined as sociological cultural arts which could encompass Music, Art and Sociology which might give people more of a sense of individualism as well as things like nationalism. When i was at school we were taught how to create music and analyse music in very much the same way, we wasnt really told to express our own opinions on what the music or art could represent, same applies for culture really. In a way i feel the system is creating clones, people are taught how to do things in very much the same way which in turn suffocates our individualism, therefor a subject area that lets people express themselves more openly aswell as showing the social aspects of that would be one i would add to my own curriculum

 

EDIT: the best way to learn from history is to edit out the names, this would allow us to still learn from our mistakes without all the bias which accompanies being right or wrong or being the writer of that history.

 

Ah ha, I finally got you are from the UK. That explains a lot. You are so lucky to have any music at all. In the states all the arts have been cut out of education, unless a child is in a more affluent neighborhood, where people pay higher taxes and can give their children are better education. It kills me to know we cut music from education when is so related to comprehending math, not just memorizing math facts. People can not advance to the higher math without a good comprehension of the basics.

 

Further more, image how exciting a history class, presented through music and art would be? People with no education in the arts, can not begin to imagine how much they have to learn from the arts, and this could be considered a crime against humanity. Some people seem to prefer an education fit for robots, to science fit for human beings.

 

UK, the primary purpose of education in the UK was to teach their young how to be good Englishmen. This country has so many names, I am sure which to use, but I want to say, they were resistant to education for technology, because they wanted to protect their class system. However, war obviously changed that. War changed the purpose of education in both the Uk and the US which were both focused on good citizenship in their unique ways. They both opposed the German focus on education technology, but for different reasons. The US was more accepting of technology, but remained focused on education for citizenship, and good moral judgement, until 1958. That is when we had a military officer for President. Eisenhower, praised the Germans for their contributions to democracy, and education for technology is an equalizer. In England, and to a degree in the US, your social position at birth remained very important. Education for technology destroys this social structure.

 

I think this misses the point. I want to understand recent history (the past few hundred years or so) so I understand why the world is as it is today. When CNN or Fox are talking about conflicts in the Middle East or civil wars in Africa, I want to know why those conflicts developed and what historical events led up to them, so I can understand the current events better.

 

A public understanding of recent history could improve the public debate on foreign policy and political issues.

 

I totally agree with you, and suspect you might be older than Keelanz. Like what did you do when there was talk of invading Iraq? Those educated some years ago, might rush to a geography book, or history books and independently research Iraq, unless they are Christian and rely on their church for information. I know I jumped on the Internet and learned about the Baghdad Railroad and how all the European countries wanted control of this region before WWI! I think this need to do our own research is the result of earlier education, preparing us to rely on ourselves for information, instead of on "authority". The media, the church, nor any other "authority" defines reality for me. I do my own independent studies. But education for technology prepares everyone to rely authority. This is essential to the rapid development of technology. No way could we advance technology so rapidly if we did not rely on the work of the work others.

 

This learned reliance on authority, goes with specialization. Instead of preparing everyone for well rounded individual growth, we are specializing people through education. See how nicely this goes together? People are specialized and learn to rely on authority, and this is not democracy we defended in two world wars. This is the path of authority over the people, because life is just to complex not be ordered by the bureaucracy above them. The secretary and receptionist who once knew everything, is now just an extension of the phone, and word processor, with extremely responses and no authority of any kind. And whenever possible, this person is replaced by a computer, totally dehumanizing us and devastating any personals liberty and power we might have. We have become like a Star Trek society run by a computer, and think education good for programming computers is the best education we can have.

 

social evolution and education is the answer as with most history, i dont disagree with your wanting to understand our current political position through history, just how that position relates to you and history will no doubt create some form of bias especially if you look at it from the complete opposite angle, your now north african and learning why america is in your country, the bias will just breed.

 

I forgot to say. What should be mandatory in education and is essential to our survival, is an understanding of the resources we consume. We must know the supply of these resources and the rate of consumption, and how changes in supply or consumption rates will effect the economy. That we can do this today, gives us a huge advantage over earlier civilizations where the masses were ignorant of such things, and therefore, could not use such information to avoid problems that led to wars and sometimes the destruction of their civilizations. Our college educated economic experts are horribly, horribly ignorant of things like what oil has to do with the world economy. I read economic books, and they are like a story about Alice in Wonderland. They are all theory and devoid of down to earth reality.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Athena