How important is Education?

[Mightysword]

I know a few of us here have gone the full Piled Higher and Deeper route of education.
But as I have often heard, the purpose of traditional university education, and in fact further education as a whole has tended to be to produce new professors.

I don't think this is true at all, very few people reaching that high and even fewer stay with teaching. After all the profession is a conflict of interest. The jobs often require some of the highest qualification yet the pay is pale, I don't think many people invest heavily into their education to reach a Ph.D level just so they can "teach". I find that even amount full time faculty in University, their main job isn't to teach but rather they only teach a few classes as a duty, and also to do a screen to pick out high potential students while their real passion is in research. You might have overlooked the demand of advance education, those guys working for big corporation to analyze market or Wall Street analysis -those we joke about getting paid to sit at a desk and read chart all days - most of them are required to have a Ph.D in math and numerical analysis, same thing for people who work for Ulitity company and in charge of analyzing and balance network load. Those are top dollar job and always in high demand because frankly, there isn't many of them who can do that.


Also Education level is not the same things as pedagogy, someone can have 3 Ph.D and can't teach basic science or math for first year college students to save their life.

[mrbadger]

I don't do the job for the money, if money was my focus I wouldn't be anywhere near academia.

And it is possible to only teach a few hours a week and still have that as your main job, because teaching takes a lot more than just taking the classes. I spend typically four to six times more hours on preparation then I do on actual delivery, sometimes more.

I could spend less time, but I take my job seriously, so I can't, and I'm not alone in doing this.

[Morkonan]

Going to skip that global economics stuff and would like to give 2 cents on the original question if Education matters.

Keep that in mind...

I'm too illiterate to explain this in detail, which is why I'd like to link to one of the many talks by Ken Robison, that can do that so much better than me. Changing Education Paradigms

I touched on many of the same, exact, subjects in my post's spoiler, above. I could, and have in the past on this forum, gone into much greater detail. But, it wouldn't have been a 15min presentation... But, I didn't go into ADHD and the theme of "crushing the individual's childlike wonder and divergent/creative thinking using a systematic concentration-camp approach to education." (My paraphrase. )

Having said that, education in the sense of facilitating access to information and cultivating the exchange of knowledge, thus liberating humanity for empathy and wisdom, yes please we need MORE accessible education, we need it desperately and we need it now.

Do you think that self-directed learning is the answer? Should we just make information available as well as access to someone who knows it well, just in case, and then, through some self-directed process undertaken by the individual, it will result in... a solution? This will produce people who have economically viable skillsets and the education necessary to build a sewer-line that doesn't contaminate drinking water or create an O-Ring that doesn't cause the next Space Shuttle to blow up?



I don't believe that entirely "self-directed" plans of education are viable alternatives without defining "Phase 2." (Pardon the graphic, it's an attempt at levity. )

Yes, I think that self-directed education schemes, are, for the most part, a possibly "good thing" when it comes down to advanced education.

But, in the broad picture, to whom does it offer the most advantages? Simply put, it offers the best advantages to those who are motivated to pursue the study of a subject and can remain motivated for long enough to even learn the parts of it that they're not so enthusiastic about, but are entirely necessary for a full education on the subject.

And, who are these self-directed learners that have found themselves drawn to a particular course of study? They're people that have already been introduced to it! OR, they're people that during their initial exposure, found something in the subject that intrigued them or became the initial driving force for their motivation to pursue that subject.

How many sheepskin holders here decided upon their advanced degree and specific area of interest before being introduced to the subject? How many took a course in their exploration of a subject and, one day, heard something in a lecture or read something in a textbook that became their "Aha" or "Eureka" moment which energized them to pursue the subject in depth?

A public education "plan" is for the "public." It's not just for those who are exceptional individuals or those who, by whatever individual means, have the means and initial motivation to pursue it. As Robinson touched on, briefly, it's a matter of State concern, as well. (Though, he talked about an Enlightenment influence, which he presents in a false context, in my opinion, and failed to discuss the foundations of today's public education system rooted in Industrialization and the "practical" concerns of the State and the workforce market.

The concerns of Industrialization ABSOLUTELY assumed that the average person could become someone capable of reading and having a standardized level of education that would result in a worker that is the direct opposite of what Robinson promotes as the "Enlightenment" view. (I'm pretty incensed that he presented such a biased opinion only to falsely taint the water in order to flourish his proposal.) The goal of public education today is to produce people who are capable of being much more than the wrench-turning monkeys of the Enlightenment view Robinson describes.

In fact, it could be said that the ultimate goal of public education, for the individual and potential employers, is to produce a worker who is entirely capable of self-directed-decision making and understanding the implications of their work and actions in an industrialized workplace that could, otherwise, put them in a situation of being a drooling dial-watcher.

In many disciplines, the ranks are filled with enthusiastic learners. But, colleges are filled with non-blank slates that aren't, necessarily, attending the alter of knowledge. Instead, they're there because they don't know where they want to go. In some cases, they have an idea, but they don't know how to achieve it. In others, they move into an area of study and become disheartened or lose their interest. And, some attend, but are drawn away by external events.

What do we do for these people? Do we just sit back and say "Let them eat cake" and wonder to ourselves why they don't simply do that?

Self-directed learning - Good idea, may work for some. But... there's a significant lack of a "Phase Two" and very little practical considerations of the "public" part of this sort of plan for public education.

PS - Someone has to pay for it and someone has to convince them to do so. How's that gonna happen? One of those "economic" things that some proponents just don't want to address.

[Mightysword]

I don't do the job for the money, if money was my focus I wouldn't be anywhere near academia.

That's exactly the point I am making, not many people would. My university used to have specific channel to funnel their students into Lockheed Martin and Silicone valley, as I'm sure most well-known university will have place for their student to be, after all that's one of the main drawn. Only on very rare occasion when a promising individual student show keen interest in academia, then the university might "groom" that student to eventually be retained as a teacher, and that's where the pedagogy stuffs come in.

I'm simply contesting the notion that the point of higher education is to produce teacher, that's pretty far from the truth IMO. Most people put the afford to reach that level are 5-6 digits salary job seeker, not many invest that kind of time, money, afford for a 4 digits salary. You may, but that fact that most other do not.

And it is possible to only teach a few hours a week and still have that as your main job, because teaching takes a lot more than just taking the classes. I spend typically four to six times more hours on preparation then I do on actual delivery, sometimes more.

It's not about that, as I'm sure many instructor love teaching so don't take that personal, it's simply reality when you get down to sustainability. A Ph.D working for Wall Street probably will earn 5 digits salary, when I say pale, I mean pale in comparison to that, a Ph.D in academia is still a high earner comparing to the rest of the population, like something 60-80k a year at least. Now let's say you're teaching two classes a semester, so maybe 5-6 classes a years. In my experience graduated class is small, mine never have more than 20, usually only around 12. A university on average offer HUNDRED of classes per semester, on that scale it's not sustainable.

That's why the bulk of the classes are taught by other instructor who are not involved in researching, usually the adjunct. You might consider teaching 2 graduated class a full time job because I suspect those classes still heavily involved in research work, compare that to someone teaching full time who will teach anywhere from 4-6 class per semester in 20+ students class room and you may see what I mean.

[Ketraar]

Granted my involvement in this process relates to the first steps in education, the proposal we try to implement is focussed on children and its not even only related to the academic bit of education but focusses a lot on growths and sustainability.

Its starts with the notion of formatting, if you build a curriculum, you will have boards defined what is considered valid information to be taught. This has in the best case minor impacts, but in most cases its effects are devastating as it puts most people in arbitrary groups based on arbitrary criteria that are hardly fitting anyone. The notion that children have to sit for hours is counter-intuitive to being a child. Humans are instinctively curious and really only require access. There are many studies since the 70 that show good evidence of success if children are left to learn at their own pace and interest.

This does not mean you can just toss toddlers in a room full of books and leave them fend for themselves, far from it. You create environments that facilitate learning, you have people (adults) as support. One such example would be the Motessori system, just to illustrate one possible alternative.

Children are natural learners if they dont suffer from any illness, they will learn pretty much anything, but the rate of learning things they are engaged in is not even comparable. Its the adults "job" to create engagement and ride the fine line that separates incentive and formatting. Many of the social problems we face today are directly linked to standardised education, where children are TOLD what to think, not HOW to do it.

For later specialization, related to jobs and economy, you can have the academia as you like, because at this point you already have a well formed young adult that was allowed to grow "naturally" and develop enough character to make a much solid choice of life in terms of what to tackle next, than people that grew up to social norms and often frustrated parents with misguided expectations, that force children to things THEY think is best, without even knowing what that is.

So ultimately its also about freedom. Its about being allowed to grow and develop as free as possible and not be put into a classroom of medium level students just because you are the child of immigrants, thus assuming you cant be that smart and expected to perform below average. Then sitting in class annoyed and bored out of your mind, waiting for the teacher to explain the same thing for the 20th time, because there are some people that really not get/like maths. How do you explain to this child that they will have a mediocre life because the school system branded people based on random norms like manufacturing date and the location of birth?

At this point even I have lost what I was trying to say and really just ranted away on how bonkers it looks like from where I stand. So I'll just end it here with the answer to who should pay for it, as its a simple answer. Society has to provide access to free education to ALL, period. Its cheaper too.

MFG

Ketraar

[Morkonan]

...Its starts with the notion of formatting, if you build a curriculum, you will have boards defined what is considered valid information to be taught. This has in the best case minor impacts, but in most cases its effects are devastating as it puts most people in arbitrary groups based on arbitrary criteria that are hardly fitting anyone. The notion that children have to sit for hours is counter-intuitive to being a child. Humans are instinctively curious and really only require access. There are many studies since the 70 that show good evidence of success if children are left to learn at their own pace and interest.

The question I have is: Why is the current system not workable as it is designed and a new system must take its place for it to be successful?

I have nothing against change, but I wonder how the current system is viewed as such a monumental failure by some, considering that most of the learned people who are against it were actually educated by it, themselves.

This does not mean you can just toss toddlers in a room full of books and leave them fend for themselves, far from it. You create environments that facilitate learning, you have people (adults) as support. One such example would be the Motessori system, just to illustrate one possible alternative.

I dated a Montessori school teacher, so I consider my self an expert! On Montessori school teachers, that is. However, from what I can remember, no significant performance or intellectual ability has ever been shown to be a product of Montessori programs vs standard education. (Just off the top of my head, when I used to be interested in such things. Maybe later studies say differently?)

Children are natural learners if they dont suffer from any illness, they will learn pretty much anything, but the rate of learning things they are engaged in is not even comparable. Its the adults "job" to create engagement and ride the fine line that separates incentive and formatting.

So... children should be rocket scientists? Awesome! A bit of trouble getting around Child Labor Law, but it's doable.

The point is that humans naturally have an extremely high capacity for learning. Children, especially, soak up oodles of stuff like a sponge. We sit back and marvel at it, but that's the way children's brains and behaviors are naturally built. Then again, they also poop in their pants and pull pigtails, so it's not all that great of a miracle in toto.

Yes, foster their learning and provide them with safe, healthy, nurturing, stimulating learning environments so they can become comfortable with and used to learning new things! That's a great thing to do and we all should be determined to make that happen for every child. But, it's likely they'd still have a huge appetite for learning new things if one stuck them out on an African plain with only rocks and sticks to play with.

Many of the social problems we face today are directly linked to standardised education, where children are TOLD what to think, not HOW to do it.

I am curious which social problems that we face today are directly linked to standardized education, presumably because children are told "what" to think.

I do strenuously agree with you that it appears that too few students are given much encouragement to formulate good ways of "how" to think and, especially, how to gain and use knowledge. Back in the day, there was some ".099" level introductory course that was supposed to teach students "This is how you student and learn stuffs." It was crap and mostly involved tours of the campus library and how to use an overhead projector... Later, the Psych dept put together a great class that incorporated CBT and behavioral principles to teach students "how to teach themselves." (HOW to learn stuffs.) One of the markers for success, should the student choose, was reporting exam grades and tracking one's progress. It was a great class. I doubt they offer it, anymore... :/

For later specialization, related to jobs and economy, you can have the academia as you like, because ...well formed young adult that was allowed to grow "naturally" and develop enough character ... solid choice of life... than people that grew up to social norms ... frustrated parents with misguided expectations ... force children to things THEY think is best..

So ultimately its also about freedom. ... allowed to grow ... as free as possible .. not be put into ... medium level students just because ... child of immigrants, ... assuming you cant be that smart and expected to perform below average. ... sitting in class annoyed and bored ... there are some people that really not get/like maths. ... child that they will have a mediocre life because the school system branded people based on random norms like manufacturing date and the location of birth?

<sic>

OK, I understand that there are social and cultural factors bound up in public education. I even understand political pressures and the lobbying groups that attempt to push their own agendas.

But, this sounds much more like "I want to do what I want to do and you're not the boss of me" than a system that is designed to help children, young adults and adults achieve the levels of knowledge and intellectual skill that will serve them best in a chosen, viable, career path.

At this point even I have lost what I was trying to say and really just ranted away on how bonkers it looks like from where I stand. So I'll just end it here with the answer to who should pay for it, as its a simple answer. Society has to provide access to free education to ALL, period. Its cheaper too.

I agree with you - I think that nations should offer quality free public education. I'll go so far as to say that they should offer free college/university education as a part of a "citizen's educational rights" sort of plan. It benefits everyone and, as we've seen in the past hundred years or so, most nations do agree that quality public education is a positive thing for their citizens and their own economic competitiveness. Taking it to the "next step" for colleges/universities seems to me to be a logical progression.

Note: In the U.S., the subject of "Student Loans" is a touchy one, with many students finding themselves in deep debt and unable to get a job in their chosen discipline, "Underwater Basket Weaving During the Napoleonic Era and the Influences of Stoicism on Weave Patterns." (Yes, I'm making light of a curiously serious issue concerning many of today's young graduates.) Yet, student loans and even grants, for some, exist. They often have low interest rates and have a number of ways they can be forgiven, with no penalty, or otherwise substantially reduced. That's a small part of the conversation when it comes down to higher-level education and the question of "making it "free"."

[Mightysword]

The question I have is: Why is the current system not workable as it is designed and a new system must take its place for it to be successful?

I have nothing against change, but I wonder how the current system is viewed as such a monumental failure by some, considering that most of the learned people who are against it were actually educated by it, themselves.

That's the same sentiment that I have. If we count modern era started with the advance of mass education of the 20th century, then no doubt we had advanced pretty far. Like I said, you simply have to compare the state of countries with an established education system versus one without and the difference is obvious. No matter what belief one may have about the current system is failing or not, one can not simply dismiss and deny the accomplishment the supposed fail system had manage to achieved. So I'm one who not buying into the sale pitch that it's something broken and have to be replace ... rather, it's being corrupted and have to be refined.

Looking at history, most of the major discover that server as the basic of modern society was founded from the time where the education system around the world was much more rigid and pure, I think the deterioration we see today is the result of a lot of our drive are now influenced by political correctness and social engineering. We focus too much on thing such as prestige, feel good statements, talking about dreams while at the same time move too far away from practicality and reality.

I agree with you - I think that nations should offer quality free public education. I'll go so far as to say that they should offer free college/university education as a part of a "citizen's educational rights" sort of plan. It benefits everyone and, as we've seen in the past hundred years or so, most nations do agree that quality public education is a positive thing for their citizens and their own economic competitiveness.

It's a double edge sword really. Even if you manage to make everything free, there will still be one thing that can never be free - TIME. Years that a student spent pursuing a the wrong direction will still be years that student never get back. A student without a degree is likely one that does not have a good job, and likely one that need society support, even if that student doesn't have to pay for tuition, he/she still have to pay for their life, or someone have to. I don't know about others, but for me personally, I know I tried a lot harder to pass my class when thousand of dollars are flying out of my pocket comparing to classes I didn't have to pay. Do you believe I'm a unique lazy guy in that regard?

"Creating the environment so everyone can live up to their true potential" is a buzz statement that you can hear at just about any educational conference. It's politically correct, I'm sure it makes the speaker feel good and the listener feel equally good. But there is always one thing that tick at the back of my mind when I hear that: "that's all fine and good, but have anyone ever thought of what gonna happen to those who fail to reach that potential?". Engineering school in general have an abysmal success rate, yet every years thousand of students are funnel toward it on the promise of prestige and good pay. In each semester, the 30 or so engineers go up to their podium and receive the diplomat usually walk on the corpse of nearly a thousand others from the start. That's a question I feel no one ever bother to address, which lead to this quote of yours:

Note: In the U.S., the subject of "Student Loans" is a touchy one, with many students finding themselves in deep debt and unable to get a job in their chosen discipline

Which is exactly what I mean by a double edge sword. A parallel example: years ago my country doesn't have a morgate system. When you buy a house, it's done in gold bullion, full cash at signing. Most people will have to wait pretty long before they can afford to buy a house, and it's usually an accumulation of a life work. The downside is of course, buying your own house when you are young starting a new family is pretty much next to impossible, a couple will have to work hard and save up a lot if they want to own a house in their early 30. The up side? Forclosure is a concept that simply doesn't exist. On the opposite, a morgate allow people to have a home early. And here is the thing, ideally you want people to pick one that they can afford, but time and time again (with the latest one happened in 2009) it's proven beyond any shadow of doubt that if you build a system purely base on good faith in that people will make the best choice for themselves is an extremely risky endeavor.

Most countries in Asian (even an advance one like Japan) I found are much more realistic comparing to the system in the West that they are often focus more on guiding the student on their situation, as opposed to push everyone toward the same "dream" like I see being done in the US. The advice given to a highschool graduate are realistically based on their aptitude and family situation, not goating them toward a prestigous dream.

For every success story here that makes us feel good, how many hidden unsuccessful story there are in the shadow? As you surely notice with the current situation about our student debt, it's easy to deduce that there are a lot.

[mrbadger]

One thing to add at this point.

Each year I encounter students who are, I guess you could best describe it as terrified at the prospect of directing their own learning, and these are students who are literally months away from graduating into the working world.

They fight back every step of the way, through every route available to them, up to and including going over my head to the head of my school (yeah, we're a 'school' now, not a department, dunno why) to get them to force me to make it like they want it.

These days I get supported, because I have a new head of school, but my old head was a really ineffectual do nothing who used to wheedle me into trying to appease them.

I used to have to make the point that she was talking about five students (usually about five) out of sixty, so which was the more important amount to please....

Each time it happened I used to have to make the same point though. Either that no longer happens or they get nowhere now, because I haven't been called to address pointless complaints since he took over.

Then when they inevitably get terrible grades because they don't bother trying, even though I offer them lots of support (and yes, I do, plenty), they suddenly become experts on the making schemes they previously had clearly ignored and start demanding higher marks, and blaming me personally for their low overall degree grade.

Been on this ride a few times.....

[Jericho]

I haven't read the entire thread, as I'm supposed to be working.

My comments might come across as conspiracy theory or New World Order or stuff like that. Not my intention, just what I've observed over the years.


Controversial stuff first:
1) You are born 'intelligent' or 'not intelligent'. There is no way to gain intelligence.

2) Most people (myself included) tend to think of "knowing lots of things" as "being intelligent". It isn't. It's just remembering stuff. Knowing the Latin for "My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard", or knowing the 5 longest rivers in the world, or being able to quote a 19th century philosopher will not help you put a man on the moon, or McGyver your way out of a plane-crash that you survived and now have to get back to civilization.
----------------------------------

Other stuff:
1) There is one of Arther C Clarke's better books "A Fall of Moondust" where a 'moon bus' is trapped under the dust/sand on the moon, and they have to wait for rescue. There is a conversation between 2 of the characters. One is an aboriginal Australian doctor and says that just because he went to university, it doesn't make him smarter than his grandfather who couldn't read and had no education. His grandfather could support a family and survive in the barren dessert. Isn't that intelligence?

2) When people call Stephen Fry intelligent or 'brainbox' he hates it. He admits that he is just able to remember a bunch of 'useless' facts. His first book, the semi-autobiographical Liar kind of mentions this too. The main character is excellent at remembering things, but that doesn't make him intelligent.

Me:
1) At primary school, I had a near-perfect memory. Told something once, I could remember it perfectly. "You're so clever!!!" everyone would tell me.

2) I would believe them. Of course I would. I was 4.

3) Top of my class in everything, because all school does is TEST WHAT YOU CAN REMEMBER! There is no real intelligence required.

4) Then as you get older in school, suddenly you have GCSE qualifications, and you are actually required to WORK for a change. Suddenly I find out that I have no idea how to actually work or apply critical thinking. Also I'm very very very lazy, because I've never really needed to learn anything before.

5) So, my grades took a massive tumble as my coursework scores were terrible. Thankfully the regular exams which I passed easily (just remember this stuff! Easy!) brought them back up again.

6) Then it is A-Levels, and suddenly you are thrown into the wild of having to research stuff yourself. Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Maths, all needed to become a doctor, and just remembering stuff suddenly isn't that useful anymore.

7) Then University, which was a joke, as it was back to remembering junk once again.

8) Then work, and I'm back with people that are intelligent, where as I just remember stuff.



So that is my experience. Now the Conspiracy Theory part....!!!

1) School is bullcr4p. Here in the UK, you have the 'normal' school for us plebs, and the private schools (called public schools to add to the confusion) where all of our leaders went to.

2) Our normal schools do nothing more than tell us drones which stream of drones we will become, when we graduate and make stuff for our private school masters/elite. We are the Morlocks (But we never get to eat the Eloi)

3) The private schools such as Eton are basically just a way of getting the ruling elite's children to socialize and form 'societies' with each other, so that when they graduate university, they all know each other and hire each other into positions of power. As soon as become that politician, you hire your friends for everything you need. Contracts and business goes to the companies that are owned or run by your school friends. They are the Eloi, but they don't get eaten by us Morlocks.



I used to work with the Eloi, and 'they' are just a different breed of people. They didn't 'waste' there time building a mug-tree in woodwork at school. They were busy learning the best way to steer a conversation so that you end up agreeing with them.

While I was at college, I was seeing a girl who was definitely a social class-and-a-half above me. I am very well spoken, and I'm very athletic, and I used to be able to remember a bunch of Latin. So I usually 'pass' for 'one of them'. She didn't mind that I was a pleb, I was very good in bed back then, so that was the most important thing about our relationship. But our school days could not have been more different.

So... Is education important.
Well, to read and write and arithmatize (the three "R"s (stupid expression)) Yes, it is very important.
Further than that. Nope.
Employers require qualifications, so from that view, they are important.

I don't have an answer.

Would you rather see a doctor, who was like me in that I just remembered all the stuff and applied it to your case (I'm not a doctor by the way).

Or would you rather see a doctor who was intelligent and used his/her intelligence to work out what the problem was (undoubtedly, he is also able to remember all the stuff as well).


I've probably not explained myself very well, but I'm typing fast as I'm supposed to be working but hating what I'm doing at the moment.

[mrbadger]

Thing is, I was even considered stupid by other kids, not just the teachers, since I couldn't write, ad I was awful at sports.

Everyone ignored me. I didn't go to private school, There I *might* have been treated a little better, maybe, I don't know.

I got where I got purely on my own, with little help from anyone else. The first time I relied on anyone else was my wife.

I like your reading list, shows you have taste

[Morkonan]

...Looking at history, most of the major discover that server as the basic of modern society was founded from the time where the education system around the world was much more rigid and pure, I think the deterioration we see today is the result of a lot of our drive are now influenced by political correctness and social engineering. We focus too much on thing such as prestige, feel good statements, talking about dreams while at the same time move too far away from practicality and reality.

(Could have responded to more, but I want to limit my replies as best as I can, so as not to flood the thread with stuffs people don't want to read.. )

We have pushed a message to our young generation that they have an intrinsic value to society and that they fully deserve this. This is very true - All human beings should be valued for who they are, not what they are.

But, then we've filled many of their heads with so much rhetoric that some have forgotten that, while society appreciates you, it's not going to give you whatever you want for free and not everyone in society is bound to declare your practical worth to them as being immeasurably valuable. Further, we've firmly planted it in their heads that they should "you do you" and be whatever they wish and follow their own course because what we value above all is "freedom of choice." Then, when left to their own devices to be "free" and set on the road and told to pick a direction, when they make a bad choice because nobody has acted to help them form a credible and desirable one, we tell them "thanks for playing, you have gained nothing, please deposit $250 this month to make your payment on your student loan for a non-viable degree."

We have neglected to inform them that Social Darwinism will be the judge of the appropriateness of their choices.

It's a double edge sword really. Even if you manage to make everything free, there will still be one thing that can never be free - TIME...

During the Enlightenment period, in the West, education, philosophical or "scientific", was undertaken mostly by wealthy individuals who had the time and resources to do so. In fact, it's only relatively recently that universities have been accessible to people who aren't financially affluent, thanks to a "sponsor" system, either public (State) or private (grants/private loans.)

We can not give anyone free time and we can not release everyone from every possible burden that could effect their ability to participate in higher education. One day, we may be able to do these things. However, even so, I doubt that any time in the near future will there be a period in which we no longer need skilled vocational labor or even semi-skilled workers to fill vital roles.

.."Creating the environment so everyone can live up to their true potential" is a buzz statement that you can hear at just about any educational conference...

It may be a buzzphrase, but it is fully justifiable given modern political and social thought. We have a "duty" to provide such an environment for every person. That does not mean, however, that everyone will always have equal access. It should mean, however, that access is not blocked to anyone, no matter their hardships. This sort of philosophy behind public education and higher education is an advanced notion, given public education was never intended to provide the same value of instruction as higher-order colleges and universities.

That's the conundrum we're currently dealing with - Not all knowledge, education or training is equally valuable, despite the fact that we've pushed the notion that all human beings are equally valuable so deep into our children's head that they believe it must apply to everything that they do... no matter how inane.

...3) The private schools such as Eton are basically just a way of getting the ruling elite's children to socialize and form 'societies' with each other, so that when they graduate university, they all know each other and hire each other into positions of power. As soon as become that politician, you hire your friends for everything you need. Contracts and business goes to the companies that are owned or run by your school friends. They are the Eloi, but they don't get eaten by us Morlocks....

Sorry for truncating, but I wanted to pick out these two very important points:

First - With the firm establishment of the Information Age, we are seeing a very unique, in human history, screening and hiring dynamic - The impact of near instantaneous information exchange and availability.

With this, the very real impact that social and "word of mouth" information exchange about available jobs and those who are qualified for them is disappearing in the "skilled marketplace." (It still exists in a very real degree in the larger semi-skilled and laborer markets.)

What that means is pretty dramatic - It doesn't mean that because you got a degree and are skilled in a particular form of labor that you will be able to apply for a job without much competition. In fact, what it means is that the competitive field for any skilled job, especially in the tech sectors, has broadened dramatically. It has gotten so large that one must either truly excel in one's chosen discipline or, otherwise, excel "on paper" with degrees and certifications, or one must have very strong advantages in another area, like social contacts, affluent connections, secret societies and the Illuminati if one is to gain the most desirable jobs...

What is called "social media" plays a critical part in job-seeking behavior, today. Not only with things like Linkedin (which I get constant friggin messages from and updates, which I'm friggin sick of) but with blogs and crappy crap that many serious, excellent, students and professionals aren't used to using very well to make hiring them seem more appealing. A friend of mine with decades of engineering management in the tech sector and who has a dept budget in the millions of dollars and who makes decisions every day that effects a huge swath of people... He told me that in order to make himself more appealing to employers, despite his experience, he'd have to start a technical blog, invest a lot of time in social media specializing in his discipline and grab as much resume' padding achievements (big ones) in order to be able to compete with the worldwide labor pool... Literally - Worldwide.

So, an advanced degree today entitles one to say they have the absolute, ground-level, most basic capability to fulfill the minimum job-requirements in an entry-level, very low port-of-entry, position in one's chosen field. However, gaining the best jobs, especially if they're scarce, requires one to compete heavily, even globally, for them.

(Redacted economic environment comments.)

So... Is education important.
Well, to read and write and arithmatize (the three "R"s (stupid expression)) Yes, it is very important.
Further than that. Nope.
Employers require qualifications, so from that view, they are important.

I don't have an answer....

But, what of the value of education as a whole? What of the value of a broad or "holistic" education?

Your comment reveal you've read some interesting books or have seen some interesting movies that are certainly focused on social commentary. In fact, you've taken those ideas and have applied them directly to the situation at hand, even though you may have not yet reached a conclusion you are satisfied with. Still, your use of information and your exposure to other disciplines and the arts has allowed you to applied what you have experienced and learned, there, to the a problem at hand not directly within their fields.

The issue of a "complete" education comes to mind. The arts, literature (especially!), the "soft-sciences", even physical education and sports, all can play a role in forming a well-rounded, valuable, potential employee. This holistic education can even make one more valuable than a competitor who has not had such exposure and experiences.

How does experience and knowledge of these these ancillary disciplines outside of one's chosen field of study effect one's ability to gain employment or to excel? I think they matter a great deal.

[Morkonan]

Thing is, I was even considered stupid by other kids, not just the teachers, since I couldn't write, ad I was awful at sports. ..

I was poked, prodded and examined. I went through a battery of tests before and during kindergarten... I remember dark rooms, examiners politely telling me to accomplish certain tasks, shapes, colored blocks, drawing, a "written test", discussions, blah blah. When I spoke, which was rare, the kindergarten teachers listened to me. Later, all during grade-school and into high-school, my "permanent record" (Insert Southpark joke) followed me and teachers/profs would sometimes seem to pay special attention to me. I got away with whatever I wanted.. But, luckily, I have a conscience that demanded fairly decent behavior/morals/ethics, so I didn't abuse whatever apparent privilege I had. Well, not too much, at least.

But... everyone had such high expectations (And demands). And, look at me now! I'm posting on a game forum. I've accomplished nothing of note, as far as I am concerned, and have little value when compared to most.

The Great shall be humbled and the humbled made mighty...

[mrbadger]

That thing of leading a horse to water but you can't make it drink?

I've seen that so many times, my last comment demonstrates the exact thing.

Equal access fixes nothing. You need to find out how to help people understand the value of education to them personally.

If the education you're offering isn't of value, how can they find the education that is?

I hate it when I see students who I can plainly see have been badly advised and aren't suited to university life at all.

Not that they're stupid, usually the opposite is true. But my subject isn't for everyone, university isn't for everyone, but these days success means 'must go to university' apparently.

But sometimes people are just lazy, and will stay lazy till they mature and have a chance to realise laziness is the wrong way to go.

[Morkonan]

That thing of leading a horse to water but you can't make it drink?

For me, I drank deeply and broadly. (I was forced out, because I could no longer accumulate credits... Well, I could have stayed in as some sort of life-long scholar, but I'm pretty sure someone would have probably come along and shot me or something. (If you guys had American access to firearms, I'm sure one of you would have been tempted to fly over here and shut me up with a dose of lead. )

BUT, I never lived up to my own standards, certainly not the expectations and demands of others.

..Equal access fixes nothing. You need to find out how to help people understand the value of education to them personally.

Absolutely true! "Education" is not always a goal that contains a "direction" within it. There is an intrinsic value, as well.

If the education you're offering isn't of value, how can they find the education that is?

I hate it when I see students who I can plainly see have been badly advised and aren't suited to university life at all.

Not that they're stupid, usually the opposite is true. But my subject isn't for everyone, university isn't for everyone, but these days success means 'must go to university' apparently.

I disagree a little bit. I think your subject is for everyone. By that, I think that everyone would benefit from learning about it. In many ways, I think that if people could go deeper in that learning, they'd realize ever-increasing benefits.

But, that doesn't mean that value is gonna spend and it doesn't mean that the electric company will take "interesting and illuminating discourse" as payment for one's bill.

Are we, due to rapidly changing social and economic factors, further emphasizing and defining the age-old line between the "haves" and the "have nots" when it comes down to ones suitable use of education?

A job is posted in "Silicon Valley." (U.S. techno-industrial-puter-info-focus-eco-development whatsits) Who responds? Well... everyone who is minimally qualified, around the world, responds. Sort of. At least, that's the hiring pool for that sought after job posting.

So, the employer's knowledge about potential candidates has been broadened so much that simply "being a candidate" is no longer the advantage it once was. If one is competing on that basis, alone, one must truly excel at "being a candidate."

What's the question, now, that a potential employee must answer? Who they know? How well they do in an interview? What does their contact list look like? Who did they go to school with? Did they pass the first interview? What third-party placement company did they hire to help them find employment and how much of a retainer or hiring-fee are they contracted for? Did they ever post their drunken fraternity party pics on their Facebook page? Do they have a smartphone? What does their Linkedin profile look like? Are the on Google+? Did they co-publish as an undergrad? A grad? Can they afford to travel to be interviewed in their first face-to-face after five different levels of pre-screening applications and Skype interviews?

Did their University advisor tell them that any of this was going to be involved in the real-world practices of lucrative employers and did they adequately prepare them for the New Real World?

[Ketraar]

I would like to go into detail answering some of the valid points made by Morkonan and explain why I think the way I do. Unfortunately English I had to learn on my own, by watching non dubbed movies, then googling words on the internet and abuse CBJs willingness to correct some of my spelling over the years.

As I try to translate already rather erratic thoughts into somewhat understandable sentences it takes me around an hour or so to write half a standard Morkonan post, often getting lost in my own translation.

Still...

The question I have is: Why is the current system not workable as it is designed and a new system must take its place for it to be successful?

The current system no longer works as we face different problems. The fast paced social and technological "advancements", make it hard to train people towards a specific goal. The example used by Jericho regarding memorizing stuff, is a good one. Many older people here have just learned to memorize stuff, like rivers, capitals, etc. shows how hard is for most of them to grasp anything abstract. Not sure how it is in other places, but here the type of education is pretty much the same still. Children are told stuff, they memorize it and repeat by making crosses in multiple choice tests. Then when faced with the slightest "curve ball" they struggle.

On top of things, the educational hierarchy, of maths and language being the main focus and a complete disregard for pretty much everything else makes things even worse. Which brings us to the issue of having curriculum, often set by people with excel sheets in front and low or no contact with the "real" world. Putting people together based on stupid criteria like, birth date and location. That you have nothing in common with anyone else interests no one. Mostly school is worse than a job, I can quit and change my job, but a child cant do that for school, so they have to make do with being lucky.

And that is what bugs me the most, it cant be that you need to be lucky, a system has to be implemented that allows for the maximum outcome, freedom of development, easy access and safety. Any system that accounts for these and TRIES to put them as priority will be better than the current one.

The point is that humans naturally have an extremely high capacity for learning. Children, especially, soak up oodles of stuff like a sponge. We sit back and marvel at it, but that's the way children's brains and behaviors are naturally built. Then again, they also poop in their pants and pull pigtails, so it's not all that great of a miracle in toto.

I fail to understand your point here. Children are children, they dont need to a miracle, THAT is my main point. They need to be allowed to be children, not having 3 year old toddlers being interviewed so they can become a CEO, or Dancer, or Footballer, etc. No one knows what that child will like, it wont have the chance to develop "naturally". Give it the best access you can provide and allow it to define what talents it has on its own, the gain for society is enormous.

An example I use here, is of one aunt. She is a very intelligent person, you can tell by speaking to her she loves learning and likes to delve deep into philosophy. But she was made to go to work at the age of 14, she was made to become a housewife, have children and all that. Now imagine what can happen if this person is allowed access to study and develop fully. Maybe she would have the exact same life, with the difference that she would have had a choice. Maybe she would have gone to study medicine and invented the cure for a disease, we will never know.

One thing is for sure if we "educate" children to achieve what WE think is best for them, we are gambling with their lives and eventually with society as a whole.

Not going to address the whole "you get born with intelligence" remark, even if it bugs the crap out of me and will just claim that no one really agrees on what intelligence really is and how to define it.

MFG

Ketraar

[Morkonan]

I would like to go into detail answering some of the valid points made by Morkonan and explain why I think the way I do. Unfortunately English I had to learn on my own, by watching non dubbed movies, then googling words on the internet and abuse CBJs willingness to correct some of my spelling over the years.

As I try to translate already rather erratic thoughts into somewhat understandable sentences it takes me around an hour or so to write half a standard Morkonan post, often getting lost in my own translation.

Your already ahead of me, there. I speak and write a form of English that isn't really agreed upon by English speaking peoples... That's about it. (I want to learn Latin, though. But "wan't" isn't "doing.") If you'd rather, I can try to use Google Translate to interpret your finer points, if that's easier for you.

Still...

...The current system no longer works as we face different problems. The fast paced social and technological "advancements", make it hard to train people towards a specific goal. The example used by Jericho regarding memorizing stuff, is a good one. Many older people here have just learned to memorize stuff, like rivers, capitals, etc. shows how hard is for most of them to grasp anything abstract. Not sure how it is in other places, but here the type of education is pretty much the same still. Children are told stuff, they memorize it and repeat by making crosses in multiple choice tests. Then when faced with the slightest "curve ball" they struggle.

New studies out this week and last, IIRC:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 081547.htm Yay, shock treatments for memory!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 131236.htm Supersize your memory!

The point is that "progress" in understanding how people learn, incorporate ideas, come up with solutions to problems and even how they memorize things... these are all continually studied. BUT, what we learn is not often incorporated into practical solutions very rapidly.

http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/health/ ... -nap-pods/

Remember falling asleep in school? College? Morning classes were terrible trials? There's a reason for that. In fact, sleep is critical for your brain to reboot its capacity for learning. Little sleep, little capacity... it's that simple. And, teenagers and young adults with still developing brains? They need that sleep, but too few get it. This school is doing something about that.

Applying knowledge is difficult. Those who specialize in such things can certainly see the advantages of new innovations. But, in order to apply knowledge, one has to be intimately familiar with the area of knowledge its' being applied to.

Students aren't often taught "how to learn" and they are only very rarely taught "how to apply one's newfound knowledge." So, it doesn't come as any surprise to me that many students aren't very enthusiastic about what they're memorizing and being tested on, since they don't see a reason to value it.

..Mostly school is worse than a job, I can quit and change my job, but a child cant do that for school, so they have to make do with being lucky.

And, you know it shouldn't be that way. But, what we should strive for is a quality education, no matter what school a child is in. And, if they're taught how to "student" and especially "why to student", maybe they'll gain an insight into how valuable their education could be?

And that is what bugs me the most, it cant be that you need to be lucky, a system has to be implemented that allows for the maximum outcome, freedom of development, easy access and safety. Any system that accounts for these and TRIES to put them as priority will be better than the current one.

And, what about the ever-controverial - Results-based education? Should we be concerned about the actual results of whatever education plan we come up with? Shouldn't we also plan to measure the performance of a new plan so that we can evaluate whether or not it is successful? How do we know if a student is benefiting from the education we are giving them if there is no way to measure their competency? After graduation, it's too late and a failure of the education system would be catastrophic for the individual if all they came away with was a misguided assumption that they knew all they needed to know about diffusing bombs, so they were ready for the bomb-diffusing business.

I fail to understand your point here. Children are children, they dont need to a miracle, THAT is my main point. They need to be allowed to be children, not having 3 year old toddlers being interviewed so they can become a CEO, or Dancer, or Footballer, etc. No one knows what that child will like, it wont have the chance to develop "naturally". Give it the best access you can provide and allow it to define what talents it has on its own, the gain for society is enormous.

We can certainly know what a child will be like if we are given a number of measurable variables. I know with a certainty that if a child is not introduced to the spoken language by age eight or so that they will have severe intellectual impairment and no amount of instruction for them a number of years afterward will significantly improve this and they will likely be incapable of caring for themselves. We can also make fairly accurate predictions given a number of other environmental and physiological factors.

But, the point is this: How is education not allowing a child to be a child? More importantly, how is acting to impair their development rather than to nurture it? How can a general education approach, like many used today in the West, be anything other than beneficial for a normal developing child?

What I'm trying to understand here is not whether or not we should encourage a child's natural ability to consume information, which I accept wholeheartedly, but why, exactly, it is being said that modern education practices are somehow harming or holding back certain students, especially the very young who are in a critical phase of intellectual development. The concept of "Freedom" and personal liberty is a wonderful thing, but we do not apply those things to children because they are not armed well-enough to use that freedom and liberty safely or constructively.

Show me an unsupervised toddler or grade-schooler and I'll show you an ever-increasingly likelihood that something, soon, will get broken. That is surely not what we're aiming for, is it?

..Maybe she would have gone to study medicine and invented the cure for a disease, we will never know.

That is entirely possible. I've met many "uneducated" people that are very intelligent. Perhaps they would have made different choices had they the opportunity? But, does that mean that the choices they made, with our seeming insistence that they were denied something, were wrong or turned out badly for them?

Missed opportunities are tragedies, but only for those who understand the potential those opportunities presented. Yes, everyone should be armed with the knowledge that opens as many opportunities for them as possible. But, that doesn't mean that they will make the choice you or I think they should make...

I know people that started families instead of furthering their education and becoming rocket-scientists or discovering the cure for apathy. Yet, despite what some would consider a "missed opportunity" on their part and, as a result, an unforgivable tragedy and a failure of the education system to motivate these people, they turned out to be happy, productive, successful members of society. And, on a personal note, I consider them to be "richer" than I am and to have more of what I would consider to be "success."

One thing is for sure if we "educate" children to achieve what WE think is best for them, we are gambling with their lives and eventually with society as a whole.

We have an obligation to do what we think is best, don't we? Yes, even if that means to "do nothing." But, if we are trying to improve education and improving it in the matter "we think is best", aren't "we" still, if one continues this train of thought, imposing ourselves upon the development of young minds?

We can not escape the responsibility and we can not escape the cost of our actions or lack of same - We have to make decisions that effect those who are not yet capable of making their own. That has been true for as long as "the family unit", the basis for human civilization, has been around.

Not going to address the whole "you get born with intelligence" remark, even if it bugs the crap out of me and will just claim that no one really agrees on what intelligence really is and how to define it.

People can generally agree what it is, at least in human terms. They can even agree on how it can be measured and compared. There is also good agreement for general predictions that revolve around an individual's intellectual capacity as measured by Standardized Method (Insert tool here).

However, there is no guarantee that a person with a superior intellect will accomplish anything nor that one with a lower measured performance will not accomplish more than a genius. All we can say with any surety is that below a certain standard measurement, a person can not adequately care for themselves or navigate social environments and that certain people with exceedingly high intellects often have deficiencies in other areas, sometimes crippling ones.

Geniuses can invent wonderful things, but sometimes they fall in love with a pigeon...

[Morkonan]

PS - I'll bow out for a couple of days because I know how verbose I can get, especially when it's a subject I'm enthusiastic about. I'll respond to replies, of course, but it's time for me to give others some screen-space for a bit.

[Jericho]

PS - I'll bow out for a couple of days because I know how verbose I can get, especially when it's a subject I'm enthusiastic about. I'll respond to replies, of course, but it's time for me to give others some screen-space for a bit.

I was just rambling when I wrote my stuff. Had limited time. Tricky subject to handle in a forum, needs a more direct back-and-forth (and a few drinks).

At least it isn't happening over twitter 140 characters to prove your case... Why do people even bother?

Twitter-guy1: Alt-left lifelong liberal
Twitter-guy2: Alt-right life long conservative christian
Twitter-guy1: Tweets: Can't you see, that your religion is wrong?
Twitter-guy-2: Replies: Wow, you're right!!!!!

Never happens. Never will happen. Why do they all get so outraged on twitter and expect to convert people one way or another in 140 characters?

[Usenko]

I have been in a few discussions where it was more like:

* Lifelong atheist: This is why I can't believe in a God.
* Lifelong Christian: That makes sense. I tackle it like this.
* Lifelong atheist: Heh, that's actually a good way to manage it. I like it. Not enough for me though.
* Lifelong Christian: Thanks! And yeah, I can respect that. This issue used to bother me. It doesn't so much anymore, but I can get where you are going with this. Anyway G2G.
* Lifelong atheist: Cool, see you another time.

They're rare, but they DO happen. And they make you feel pretty good when they do.

[Jericho]

I have been in a few discussions where it was more like:

* Lifelong atheist: This is why I can't believe in a God.
* Lifelong Christian: That makes sense. I tackle it like this.
* Lifelong atheist: Heh, that's actually a good way to manage it. I like it. Not enough for me though.
* Lifelong Christian: Thanks! And yeah, I can respect that. This issue used to bother me. It doesn't so much anymore, but I can get where you are going with this. Anyway G2G.
* Lifelong atheist: Cool, see you another time.

They're rare, but they DO happen. And they make you feel pretty good when they do.

Never seen anything like that ever! These days I've pretty much retired from the internet as both sides in any argument/debate are exactly the same. They all call each other snowflakes and make fun of their safespaces and their fragile-something-or-others.

Conservatives are the new liberals and liberals are the new conservatives. While the alt-left is every bit as bad as the alt-right.

Well, that's one way to derail a thread...