No one disagrees that America's educational system is losing ground to the rest of the world at an increasing rate. But there seems to be little agreement on why...or what to do to reverse this.
Like everyone else, I have some ideas that might bear consideration and discussion.
Let's start with some presumptions:
-the purpose of education is a function of a societies view, which is not a constant;
-the importance of education is determined by both the home and society;
-how effective education reaches defined goals is NOT defined by students.
Today, our society had become so sensitive and delicate that our history is being "sanitized" and revised so as to not "offend" anyone's sensibilities. Discussion of the cause as well as the proofs of climate change is seen as no longer legitimate, despite many instances that cast doubt on both data and reasoning. Can a country where facts can be distorted, history be re-written and challenge disallowed ever successfully "educate?" Do we WANT to educate? Define that term...
Our K-12 educational system was based on the Prussian model which had two goals: 1. indoctrinating youth to act in concert as commanded, and 2., providing reading, writing and mathematical skills sufficient to make the graduate employable and to be a worthwhile citizen of the country. For many years, it accomplished this, but with reduced indoctrination results due to American family values and demands that insisted on independent problems solving skills, and questioning of authority due to the lessons carried over from the War for Independence and needs for survival.
As the Industrial Age developed, increased skills were needed, yet problem solving became an even more important skill. With time, and increased security, family interest in History lessened but continuing knowledge of History continued in schools as a "habit." Also increased security allowed the luxury of also lessening the need to be productive in order to survive, as government began to promote a need to "support" those who could not support themselves.
Today, advancement through the grades does NOT require successfully acquiring proficiency in reading or math, and many schools are now eliminating the need to know how to write (I have no idea how these individuals will be able to record anything or communicate over any distance should our power distribution system be disabled for an extended period). Now "social" promotion is the norm and a High School Diploma is virtually useless as a qualification for a reasonably well-paying job.
K-12 Schools no longer are places where discipline is instilled, education to facts, or the art of problem solving is the norm. The inmates are running the institution. Immature children are not being trained, they are being coddled. Learning is no longer being demanded. Those interfering with the learning process are no longer being removed from classrooms or the schools, resulting in students who wish to learn being deprived of the right to accomplish that goal.
Money is not the answer; legislation is needed to provide the authority to control our youth in schools so that they can be taught the basics needed to survive in a real world. The "individual rights" concepts focuses on single trees as all around our forests are dying by our own hand.
Universities and Colleges are no better. They used to be places where an aspiring individual went to develop their ability to compete, argue, convince even as they learned more about the world around them, both present and past. They acquired advanced ability to communicate, question, and solve problems...often in intense disagreement with both classmates and Professors. Such disagreements were valued as "teaching" exercises...to be able to argue and defend a position or point even as you learned some often very valuable things from your opposition...and you respected your opponent and the opposition, knowing that it broadened your understanding of your own point of view even as it was amended in light of newly learned strengths and weaknesses. There used to be competition to be admitted to such place. And, of course, you needed to pay for it. Some graduated from High School and worked for years to put away enough money so they could take college courses and ultimately gain greater security for their family...it was a privilege to be able to achieve this, demanding dedication purpose, and hard work.
Today, attendance at a University and/or college is touted as a "right" instead of a "privilege." But today's University is not the one that I enjoyed more than a half century ago. Why? While there are probably many answers, one can be sure that with the failure of High Schools to graduate youth with the skills needed to hold ordinary jobs, the Universities and Colleges now serve to do that. However careful examination proves that such is not the case; math, writing and problem solving are no longer of any obvious interest today. Today Universities are also, like K-12, run by the inmates; "safe spaces", "nonaggression" and "being offended" are the focus of today. Administrators are dedicated to making their students "comfortable" and Professors are (apparently willingly) advised to not offend their students or require them to do anything with which those students disagree. How disgustingly plebeian are the majority of today's College and University graduates. One strongly suspects that the reason that the government makes student loans so easy to acquire is that these institutions of "learning" are great for parking a lot of our youth so they don't appear on unemployment rolls for at least 4 years... The government apparently cares little for the low probability that a majority of recipients of these loans will get an "education" that qualifies them for a job that will enable them to live and pay off those loans...
Do we want Universities that train, rather than coddle and indoctrinate? If so, restore competition in admittance, in grading, in performance, including a guarantee of open and challenging dialog between both students and faculty, and require students to come with a life plan, knowing why they are in a college setting (other than to please their parents). The least desirable element should be comfort. Learning, advancement, challenge are uncomfortable. They require ongoing effort of a lifetime, and University should be where one learns the habits that make success possible...not an artificial comfort zone that increases the likelihood of failure in a real world.
Maybe...just maybe...if we consider honoring what used to work, once again our educational "systems" can revert to successfully preparing our putative students to not only survive but achieve success in the real world.
Showing posts with label University. Show all posts
Showing posts with label University. Show all posts
Monday, August 14, 2017
Sunday, September 26, 2010
I read an interesting thought earlier today by Ronald R. Cherry :
"A natural equal right to the creative pursuit of happiness can only be secured by equal law which results in natural unequal outcome. Some individuals will attain superior achievement through greater creativity or greater labor, while others work less or with lesser creativity which naturally leads to unequal outcome."
As a thoughtful observation made, perhaps, from a quiet study or in a University setting, I found it curiously calming and reassuring. But a sense of disquiet followed that made me sit back and mull a bit on the comment, and then on the exact words used and finally on what was NOT said.
I concluded that there are a number of problems with the proposition.
First, there is no such thing as equal law. By its very nature, it is always attempting to reach and equality, to be sure, but that definition is always changing in a dynamic society. It is not a separate absolute knowable goal exactly because of that dynamic.
Secondly, the law in any event is not controlling, responding after the events where a perceived desirable outcome is not reached or reachable.The second sentence, while accurate, leads the trusting reader to assume definitions of terms where the definitions are not present, making it possible to adopt the premise of the thought...a mistake indeed. For example, what some people will define as a "greater creativity" would be defined by others as a "con" or "twisting the rules." As an example, how do you define the creation of default swaps in the midst of the run-up to the economic turmoil in which we find ourselves struggling today? What about the definition of government decisions and collective bargaining agreements which results in protecting the incomes and fortunes of those clearly not earning and deserving of such benefits?
And finally (for now), it is not at all clear that there is any "natural" equal right to the pursuit of happiness. Our Fore-fathers declared it so...and attempted to protect it in the Constitution. But consider: If it is a natural right, why does it need artificial protection in any government document and why hasn't it been evident in other ages and other countries down through history?
More logically it can be identified as a desirable privilege founded in moral thought and principle...but certainly not evident in history as having the standing of being "natural", much less a "right." Humans with a sense of purpose, a competitive spirit, a moderate willingness to and understanding of "taking a chance" and, most importantly, an understanding and belief in and willingness to accept consequences will always act and support a sytem that allows for the pursuit of happiness as a right, natural or otherwise. But there are many of the human persuasion who prefer to be cared for, to not make hard decisions, to not take chances, and to accept a lower level of happiness (for now, at least) that is guaranteed and not the product of taking chances and of hard work.
The mutual existence of these groups is made problematic by the fact that the product of the first group must of necessity by taken, at least in part, to fund the existence of the second, but...details, details, details.
The quote is useless and irrelevant to any practical application to the human condition in America. The fact that it can be read by anyone and interpreted by them to support any particular vision of life is the very fault that would make it the centerpiece of virtually universal disagreement in any attempt to apply it to real life. It's sole benefit is as a centerpiece for discussion in a University or professorial setting...a good mental exercise indeed.
"A natural equal right to the creative pursuit of happiness can only be secured by equal law which results in natural unequal outcome. Some individuals will attain superior achievement through greater creativity or greater labor, while others work less or with lesser creativity which naturally leads to unequal outcome."
As a thoughtful observation made, perhaps, from a quiet study or in a University setting, I found it curiously calming and reassuring. But a sense of disquiet followed that made me sit back and mull a bit on the comment, and then on the exact words used and finally on what was NOT said.
I concluded that there are a number of problems with the proposition.
First, there is no such thing as equal law. By its very nature, it is always attempting to reach and equality, to be sure, but that definition is always changing in a dynamic society. It is not a separate absolute knowable goal exactly because of that dynamic.
Secondly, the law in any event is not controlling, responding after the events where a perceived desirable outcome is not reached or reachable.The second sentence, while accurate, leads the trusting reader to assume definitions of terms where the definitions are not present, making it possible to adopt the premise of the thought...a mistake indeed. For example, what some people will define as a "greater creativity" would be defined by others as a "con" or "twisting the rules." As an example, how do you define the creation of default swaps in the midst of the run-up to the economic turmoil in which we find ourselves struggling today? What about the definition of government decisions and collective bargaining agreements which results in protecting the incomes and fortunes of those clearly not earning and deserving of such benefits?
And finally (for now), it is not at all clear that there is any "natural" equal right to the pursuit of happiness. Our Fore-fathers declared it so...and attempted to protect it in the Constitution. But consider: If it is a natural right, why does it need artificial protection in any government document and why hasn't it been evident in other ages and other countries down through history?
More logically it can be identified as a desirable privilege founded in moral thought and principle...but certainly not evident in history as having the standing of being "natural", much less a "right." Humans with a sense of purpose, a competitive spirit, a moderate willingness to and understanding of "taking a chance" and, most importantly, an understanding and belief in and willingness to accept consequences will always act and support a sytem that allows for the pursuit of happiness as a right, natural or otherwise. But there are many of the human persuasion who prefer to be cared for, to not make hard decisions, to not take chances, and to accept a lower level of happiness (for now, at least) that is guaranteed and not the product of taking chances and of hard work.
The mutual existence of these groups is made problematic by the fact that the product of the first group must of necessity by taken, at least in part, to fund the existence of the second, but...details, details, details.
The quote is useless and irrelevant to any practical application to the human condition in America. The fact that it can be read by anyone and interpreted by them to support any particular vision of life is the very fault that would make it the centerpiece of virtually universal disagreement in any attempt to apply it to real life. It's sole benefit is as a centerpiece for discussion in a University or professorial setting...a good mental exercise indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)