SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If you ever need to strike up a conversation with a group of academics, a surefire way to get them talking is to ask about their graduate training. Where did they train, in what methods, in which lab, under what mentor? People will speak with great pride about their training as an economist, historian, chemist, philosopher, or classicist. If, on the other hand, you need to make a quick exit, try sharing the opinion that undergraduate education should include a lot more vocational training. You'll soon find yourself standing alone or responding to accusations of classism and questions about your commitment to social and racial equality. You might even hear that "training is for dogs," a common refrain in higher education that carries the unpleasant implication that skills-based education is the equivalent of teaching students to sit, stay, and shake hands.
For reasons that are not entirely clear, in the United States training is widely understood to be the end, not the beginning, of an educational journey that leads to a particular job or career. Undergraduates are supposed to get a general education that will prepare them for training, which they will presumably get once they land a job or go to graduate school. Any training that happens before then just doesn't count.
It is because of this belief that general-education requirements are the center of the bachelor's degree and are concentrated in the first two years of a four-year program. The general-education core is what distinguishes the B.A. from a vocational program and makes it more than "just training." It is designed to ensure that all degree holders graduate with a breadth of knowledge in addition to an in-depth understanding of a particular subject area. Students are exposed to a broad range of disciplines and are pushed to think critically about the social, cultural, and historical context in which they live. It is supposed to guarantee that all graduates can write, have a basic understanding of the scientific method, have heard of the Marshall Plan and Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and know that iambic pentameter has something to do with poetry.
While few would challenge the importance of general education, both to students and to a well-functioning democracy, there is good reason to question why it has to come at the beginning of a B.A.—and just how general and theoretical it needs to be. The pyramid structure of the bachelor's degree, which requires that students start with the broad base of general requirements before they specialize, is what makes college unappealing to so many young people.
It doesn't have to be this way. There is no iron law of learning dictating that students must master general theories or be fully versed in a particular historical or cultural context before learning how to do things. Some students will do well under this approach, but there is solid evidence that some students learn better through experience. For these students, theory does not make sense until it is connected to action. Putting a lot of general or theoretical courses on the front end just leaves them disengaged or, even worse, discouraged. They will do better if they start by learning how to master certain tasks or behaviors and then explore the more abstract concepts behind the actions.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 1) by varsix on Thursday March 16 2017, @09:42PM (2 children)
Traditional university education is simply obsolete and outdated. Technological change is constantly accelerating. We need to adopt new methods of education so that we can re-skill people at a faster pace than before.
Also, who really needs to show up in a classroom to learn something? Me, personally, if I see something online and read about it, I can generally understand it quite well. If I need another explanation, there are always other sources out there that can explain the same topic in a different way.
We need to embrace online education. Our current model is slowing down economic growth and placing an unsustainable burden on the economy. When we look at student loan debt, that amount by itself is currently eating 10% of our GDP. That is way too much. Online education is the way to go. It has minimal cost attached to it. It can be used by everyone, regardless of background, assuming basic skills for reading and math are in place.
If we really want to level society and get rid of class distinctions perpetuated by a huge monetary barrier to entry, we should continue looking for ways to place education online. Not to mention that, when X job gets automated or outsourced, Joe can always go online again and re-skill in probably much less time than he otherwise could with a much smaller logistical and financial burden. The Web is the way to go.
Thankfully, this is already starting to take place. In a local college prep high school from my hometown, the administrators got rid of half the teachers and made a lot of the courses online classes. I would have liked this when I was a kid, as long as I could complete the material at my own pace.
That's another thing: lockstep class pace makes education boring. Why should I spend 2 hours in a classroom and listen to someone explain a concept I can grasp in about 2 minutes? Traditional education is an enormous waste of time as well as money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @10:05PM (1 child)
Online courses work for some things but not all. Teachers are the most valuable resource and they shouldn't be replaced. Efficiency, profits, and GDP should not be the end-goal of civilization. We created economics to facilitate trade, but these days the economic system is the end-goal which is just dumb. Try improving the world instead of making it worse in favor of some spreadsheet increases.
I'm sure a small percentage of the teacher workforce could be reduced due to online courses, but statements like:
If I need another explanation, there are always other sources out there that can explain the same topic in a different way.
are pretty crappy. You're tossing out the needs of a diverse human community for a narrow system that has worked for you. Have you tried your methods on a generation of kids starting with 2nd-5th grade (whenever they are capable of using online sources)? Asking questions is a huge part of learning, just reading text and working through sample problems has never been very effective for all students. How about people with dyslexia who need more auditory input? Etc. Etc.
(Score: 1) by varsix on Thursday March 16 2017, @10:20PM
You said, "Teachers are the most valuable resource." I personally don't believe that. First of all, that statement places everyone who works in a teaching position into a single category. Not all teachers are good. In fact, there are plenty that aren't worth the electricity that's paid to keep the lights on in the rooms they work in. For example, my 10th grade English teacher, when teaching us grammar, simply read the solutions (verbatim) out of the teacher's solution manual in front of the class instead of teaching us about grammar herself. Clearly, this woman was not the most valuable resource in a classroom. People like her, I think even you can agree, should be replaced.
Second, there are plenty of other fields out there that one could see as even more valuable. What about doctors, for instance? We definitely need people to save us when we are dying, right? Education doesn't do a corpse much benefit.
You are right that efficiency and profits shouldn't be the goal of a civilization. I agree with you on that. But our current model of education is not *sustainable*. That's what I said. It's not that economics is the end goal. It's that our current and future economic reality will not allow us to maintain the current system that we have today. Increasing pace of technological change will necessitate a change in how we educate people.
I'm not throwing out the needs of a diverse human community for a narrow system that has worked for me. I am arguing that we should change the system so that it can work better for everyone. Sure, there will be a need for facilitators for younger and disabled students. I also don't believe online education will work for the youngest kids. Those are best helped with a live person. I can grant that. But I was referring to a more general paradigm shift needed so that we can benefit everyone. I wasn't making a comprehensive post to iron out a final plan with all the details.
One thing I noticed in reading your post, however, is that it contained a lot of sentimental platitudes and glittering generalities. "Teachers are the most valuable source," "Try improving the world," "diverse human community," and so on. Statements like that don't really indicate a depth of thought.