|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Education: Wide or deep?
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
So, it has been said that as one progresses through the academic hierarchy, one learns more and more about less and less. Until, eventually, one knows everything about nothing.
I confess, as I contemplate my educational program, this is not a goal I can fully commit to. Clearly, given the amount of knowledge there is to be had, there will always be room for the specialist expert. But can there also be room for a broad-bandwidth ordinary citizen? And if there is, how, do we best align our educational systems to produce such a being?
Religious relevance: Seems to me, God has a pretty broad bandwidth, and has created a universe that challenges us in every direction. Whether we accept that challenge in one direction only, or seek to synthesise several directions at once, seems to me to be part of the freedom of will He gifted, or cursed, us with.
Someone once said that the problem with society is not that generalists are specialising, but that specialists are generalising. How do we obtain the best of both, and harness them for the benefit of humanity?
Best wishes, 2RM.
[ 28. January 2018, 14:36: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I can't speak for the academy since I escaped it decades ago, but it seems to me that even among the ever-dwindling liberally-educated slice of our population, the opposite trend is at work: knowing less and less about more and more.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
So, it has been said that as one progresses through the academic hierarchy, one learns more and more about less and less. Until, eventually, one knows everything about nothing.
I confess, as I contemplate my educational program, this is not a goal I can fully commit to. Clearly, given the amount of knowledge there is to be had, there will always be room for the specialist expert. But can there also be room for a broad-bandwidth ordinary citizen? And if there is, how, do we best align our educational systems to produce such a being?
In my experience, both depth of knowledge and breadth of experience are beneficial to most situations. Whether that be in an individual or in a team.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I can look back upon my life and see that almost everything I learned in school and college was unuseful to me in later life. Everything that I needed to know I had to teach myself. However -- what the education did teach me is how to find out. As long as you have the shovel, you can dig anywhere and unearth what you like.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Someone once said that the problem with society is not that generalists are specialising, but that specialists are generalising. How do we obtain the best of both, and harness them for the benefit of humanity?
This looks like an essay question.
We don't do homework threads. This one is closed.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Thread reopened as per discussion here and backstage.
/hosting
(note to self: do not attempt to host post from phone wifi in TGV)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
In academia, specialists require a broad background of knowledge in order to have the context for their specialization.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
In academia, specialists require a broad background of knowledge in order to have the context for their specialization.
I see less of this contextual broad knowledge than I did in decades past.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Actually in the UK with the increased emphasis on cross-disciplinary research the breadth is beginning to creep back in. Although I suspect on occasion I still will need to run a translation service between disciplines.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I can look back upon my life and see that almost everything I learned in school and college was unuseful to me in later life. Everything that I needed to know I had to teach myself. However -- what the education did teach me is how to find out. As long as you have the shovel, you can dig anywhere and unearth what you like.
This. A thousand times this.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I can look back upon my life and see that almost everything I learned in school and college was unuseful to me in later life. Everything that I needed to know I had to teach myself.
I think there's a possible case that education shouldn't be useful. Useful to whom? Too often when politicians (not you) say 'useful' they mean useful to future employers. I think a good education is one that is thoroughly unuseful to demagogues.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Well said, Dafyd. The ruling class tries harder and harder every year to turn institutes of higher learning into job training institutes.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
Thank you for reopening this thread.
One of the observations that motivated me to establish it is the alleged 'rise of populism'. Seems to me, the antidote for this is a wide general knowledge, rather than, say, an expertise in black holes or mitochondrial DNA characteristics. Not that these topics aren't interesting, just that to participate effectively in the democratic, free-speech 'Great Debate' requires a broad scope of mind, which maybe our academic institutions do not necessarily see it as their business to provide.
For example, in the UK, the General Studies 'A' level seems to have been dropped from the options available to college level students.
Best wishes, 2RM.
[ 29. January 2018, 15:04: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I can look back upon my life and see that almost everything I learned in school and college was unuseful to me in later life.
That may be the experience of others, but it’s not my experience at all. There were certainly particular things I learned in school that have never been useful to me in the least. (Triganometry, I’m thinking of you.) But on the whole, I certainly can’t say that most of what I learned wasn’t useful.
As Dafyd suggests, though, perhaps there’s an initial question: What do we mean by "useful" and "not useful" when talking about education. Useful how? To whom?.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Actually in the UK with the increased emphasis on cross-disciplinary research the breadth is beginning to creep back in. Although I suspect on occasion I still will need to run a translation service between disciplines.
Jengie
Yes, indeed, though how far that is due to economic as opposed to academic considerations is debatable. So, for example, one can be a computer programmer. Or an accountant. But if you really want to write your own employment contract, you will be both. Similarly with say, engineering and law. Or business and medicine. Such combinations are rare, and therefore lucrative.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686
|
Posted
You are correct, Caissa, but last year I had a very disappointing experience. (For reasons of confidentiality, I can't go into much detail.) I was recruiting for a number of multilingual positions which would have been perfect for current or recently graduated college and university students. I sent emails to language departments or relevant faculty in five or six institutions. The responses ranged from silence to uncomprehending (and I was quite detailed) to borderline rude. I ended up having a good conversation with one university's employment centre, and they seemed to be as mystified as I was. I was offering easy money for their students, and they didn't even give the students the opportunity to turn me down.
So, fear not, the academy is vigilant in its hostility to capitalism.
Posts: 758 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686
|
Posted
To address the OP, I had an interesting lunch last week with a university friend of mine. He (engineering, law, MBA, working in institutional finance) and I (history and philosophy, worked in finance, now writing, editing, translation) had come to the same conclusion: the most valuable thing in our university careers was that it taught us how to parse a problem and *think* through it. The factual substance of what we learned was less important than the skills we acquired, because if we wanted to be reminded of what we learned, we knew where to go back for refreshment.
I quite agree about the value of critical thought in the age of populist bullshit.
Posts: 758 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
[QUOTE]...As Dafyd suggests, though, perhaps there’s an initial question: What do we mean by "useful" and "not useful" when talking about education. Useful how? To whom?.
So should education be for it's instrumental, or intrinsic, value? Do we seek to build citizens who can earn their own living, or just citizens who can be better people? While there will always be tension between the two objectives, I do not think they are mutually exclusive. For example, inspiration in one field is often derived by analogy from observations in another.
Best wishes, 2RM.
[ 29. January 2018, 15:47: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
In academia, specialists require a broad background of knowledge in order to have the context for their specialization.
When, then, does it cross back over to the narrow-minded, I Have a Hammer, Everything is a Nail attitude that graduates seem to apply in the real world?
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Actually in the UK with the increased emphasis on cross-disciplinary research the breadth is beginning to creep back in. Although I suspect on occasion I still will need to run a translation service between disciplines.
Schools need to teach that much more than they appear to.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
I teach a first year experience course lilBuddha. One of the quotations of the Day that my students write about is from Mazlow " If only the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem seems to be nail". We emphasize the need to have many tools in your tool box. As for inter-disciplinarity, all I can say is that the academy emphasizes inter-disciplinary work more now than it did when I started as a university student in 1981.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I’m prejudiced, as a liberal arts grad and lifelong autodidact...but I think having a wide breadth of knowledge is most useful for being a “ nimble” employee able to adapt to different positions and fields as society changes, as well as for being an informed/functional citizen. That said, even we generalist types tend to find a subject or field of expertise that especially engages us, that we are willing to dig into at more than a superficial level.
I share misgivings about labeling fields of study as “useful” or “ useless.” Our local community college, for instance, cycles through a constant succession of trendy vocational majors that promptly become obsolete. I dare say courses in logic or history or philosophy are more useful in becoming a competent, insightful citizen than Widget Configuration Du Jour. Although, the human mind being an incredible thing, it’s entirely possible and indeed salutary to study liberal arts and learn vocational skills at the same time.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
In the law, at least in the United States, you basically train to be a generalist, and then take the bar exam, which tests your general knowledge across the spectrum. But as soon as you hit the ground as a lawyer, you have to specialize. It's impossible to market yourself as a generalist these days, and the law is just too complex and develops too quickly for anyone to keep up across all fields.
One professor I had used to say that she liked to expose us to just enough of certain areas of the law to teach us to call an expert if they came up. Tax is the classic example. My own field, bankruptcy, is another. If you don't know it, you can try to practice it here and there, but you are going to be in over your head and calling your malpractice insurance provider before you know it.
I do think that the general knowledge I picked up in law school does help on a day-to-day basis, as I frequently have to work out issues from tort, contracts, and other law in the context of a bankruptcy case. But the volume of law I would have to keep up with to practice in any of those areas outside of the bankruptcy context keeps me from trying it.
I will say that I never use calculus, but I appreciate knowing what it's for, and it makes me more appreciative of the people who were able to use it to calculate the distance between the Earth and Venus, for example.
Sorry for the word salad. I guess my answer is that my life is better because of general knowledge that I picked up in school, but I'm smart enough to know that specialization is a better tool for making a living wage.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess my answer is that my life is better because of general knowledge that I picked up in school, but I'm smart enough to know that specialization is a better tool for making a living wage.
One can certainly find example where a specialist knowledge is the thing. And the law can be a very complex issue.
I have worked with engineers form the very basic Civil to Aerospace. And whilst aerospace typically requires very specialist knowledge, having an engineer that also understand the other disciplines involved in a project will produce a better product.
In more creative endeavours, I have found that variations in the team produces more effective and creative solutions than too narrow a team.
I've worked to fix too many problems that resulted from too narrow a vision.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
I would absolutely agree that a group of experts in their own field working together on a big problem will generally produce better results than one expert working alone.
(I also work for a small firm, and am observing my wife put together her own small business. We're not going to compete with the big firms that can do it all, so our best option is to do one thing better than the big guys can.)
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Too often when politicians (not you) say 'useful' they mean useful to future employers.
Education is a many faceted thing. And, usefulness to employers is certainly one aspect of that. But, what education is trying to achieve varies with level.
At primary level, education is basically about giving a solid foundation in what will be needed almost regardless of what you go on to do - an ability to read, write, do basic maths, a very basic grasp of science, geography and history, an introduction to a foreign language.
At secondary level, education reinforces and exercises those basic skills, provides more information to deepen that understanding of science, history, geography etc. But, there's also an expectation that you learn important aspects of your culture (which is why we force pupils to do Shakespeare) to start to gather the broader knowledge to live in a particular culture, and I would hope other cultures since we live in a multicultural world. I think that this should be a broad education, and lessons such as citizenship are also a vital part of that (whether the particular way citizenship is taught is good is a different discussion - as is whether teaching children to be citizens and then excluding them from some acts of citizenship until 18 makes sense).
In the later parts of secondary education, especially once past the end of mandatory schooling, things almost by necessity narrow down to a smaller range of subjects - catering to individual interests and abilities, and potential career paths. The Scottish Highers system is better than the English A levels IMO since it doesn't specialise as much.
Then there's tertiary education, which is I guess where there's the biggest questions. In the UK we've merged a range of different things together into a single university system - 30+ years ago what's currently taught at university would have been covered by apprenticeships, technical colleges, polytechnics, and universities. Merging all those together under the heading "university degree" creates a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. It puts a specific course to gain the experience and knowledge needed for a particular career (be that law or medicine that traditionally was a university course, or catering or aircraft engineering which would have been technical college/polytechnic/apprenticeships) with the broader "learning how to learn" subjects which have no particular career path ahead of them, and in the older universities at least there's still the original purpose of teaching which is to train people to do research so that they can take over from university research staff when they retire.
Universities are also places to learn outwith the lecture theatre or lab. They're places where young people first live semi-independently of parents, learn to live with others, make new friends, discover new skills and interests in extra-curricula societies (in many cases taking up positions running them), interact with people of other cultures etc etc. The long vacations are times when young people can spend time exploring new things, travel or volunteering. Those opportunities are forgotten at our peril, and the pressure to get students through university as quickly as possible and the pressure from underfunding the system such that students gain massive debt means we do just that. Instead of learning social skills in student societies, students get bar or shop work to earn money to pay their way, instead of volunteering and travelling during vacations they get temp jobs. Instead of taking the time to grow as independent human beings they want 2 year degrees, staying with their parents as it's cheaper.
And, as was said, it's the politicians who are putting on this pressure. Imposing crippling fees. Demanding that a degree is seen as a step up a defined career path and obviously useful in employment. Despite the fact that most of those same politicians went through university on relatively generous maintenance grants, often studying things like Classics, and who really needs to know Homer?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I would absolutely agree that a group of experts in their own field working together on a big problem will generally produce better results than one expert working alone.
I’m not limiting my statement to one field of study. Inter- disciplinary, rather than intra-disciplinary.
In one instance, an aerospace engineer’s solution to a civil problem. One that was within the civils’ scope of ability, but not within their range of thinking.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Scottish Highers system is better than the English A levels IMO since it doesn't specialise as much.
...and US High Schools don't specialize at all, and even US colleges tend to have a general education requirement that would be thought eccentric or worse in most UK universities.
Despite this, I haven't noticed American graduate students to be generally more rounded than British ones.
So I tend to think that the question of having a broad-based background is one of attitude rather than one of syllabus. The American English graduate who "hates math" is no better at mathematics than her UK counterpart who gave up maths at 16.
Learning cannot be done to you - it is something you have to do to yourself. By the time people reach college / university, they should have acquired all the skills necessary for independent study. Then it's up to you.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Learning cannot be done to you - it is something you have to do to yourself. By the time people reach college / university, they should have acquired all the skills necessary for independent study. Then it's up to you.
But, do you not think that our academic institutions have the opportunity, maybe even the duty, to so contrive the learning environment that it is conducive to breadth, as well as depth, of learning?
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Most degrees in Canada have some breadth in them. The professional degrees are probably the most specialiazed (narrow) at the undergraduate level.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Despite this, I haven't noticed American graduate students to be generally more rounded than British ones.
My observation as to the why of this is slightly different. In talking to young Americans, they are encouraged to study in Highschool those elements that will give them a greater chance for enrollment in the university of their preference in the field they wish to get a degree in. So whilst there are general requirements, the specifics of their choices will dominate.
In other words, the generalness declines over time and, as degrees are required by more and more jobs, becomes less emphasised.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My observation as to the why of this is slightly different. In talking to young Americans, they are encouraged to study in Highschool those elements that will give them a greater chance for enrollment in the university of their preference in the field they wish to get a degree in.
Not necessarily, at least not in my part of the country. The first part—courses that will help you get in college generally, and particularly the college of your choice—is definitely accurate.
But it’s generally not the case that taking specific courses will help you get in a specific field of study at the college level. There are exceptions, mainly I think in the STEM realm, for students wanting to go to a specialized college or university that focuses on a narrow field or set of fields of study.
But most colleges and universities here aren’t set up that way. At many, you can’t even declare your major (the specific field of study you want a degree in) until sometime during your second year. And colleges assume that many if not most students will change their majors during their college career.
What colleges want to see on your high school transcript is a general course of study that includes specified levels of English, history and social studies, math, science, foreign language and other challenging elective classes that are seen as providing a well-rounded education. And most want to see a sufficient number of honors level or advanced placement* classes to give them some assurance you can handle college-level work.
*Advanced placement classes are classes for which, if you make a good enough grade and score well enough on a standardized test, you can receive credit at the college level, meaning one less class to take in college.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
In the law, at least in the United States, you basically train to be a generalist, and then take the bar exam, which tests your general knowledge across the spectrum. But as soon as you hit the ground as a lawyer, you have to specialize. It's impossible to market yourself as a generalist these days, and the law is just too complex and develops too quickly for anyone to keep up across all fields.
One professor I had used to say that she liked to expose us to just enough of certain areas of the law to teach us to call an expert if they came up. Tax is the classic example. My own field, bankruptcy, is another. If you don't know it, you can try to practice it here and there, but you are going to be in over your head and calling your malpractice insurance provider before you know it.
Totally agree, and that's the classic argument for the divided profession we used to have here formally and now in practice. There is the generalist solicitor who does much of the wide range of legal needs which the average person has; then the specialist bar, specialist both in advocacy skills and in areas of law, sometimes minute areas. It's the solicitor's role to find that right specialist.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Is the point is made when you discuss general education in law and specialisation later. Law itself is specialized. What breadth of education is rendered by a law degree?
I see the problem of narrowness even in those who have degrees from colleges of arts and sciences. They have taken intro courses in several humanities and social sciences, if they're in the arts ends, but satisfy the science requirement by a general survey course. Can they tell us about the basics of evolution or how acceleration of falling objects works? Or if on the science ends, can they quote any poetry and also tell us what it means, can they discuss basic sweeps and themes of history? They're all specializing in second year of university now. With the expense of education I understand it, but do not like it.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I am now in my 60s. I have kept up with a lot of my college friends, and it is pretty true that almost nobody, except me, does anything professionally in the field they got their degree in. (I was a Creative Writing major, and may be the only graduate of the program who actually does creative writing.) The flute majors went into computers, as did the graphic design majors, the oboe majors, the technical writing majors. My daughter, an international relations major with a double minor in Arabic and Spanish, is a US Army reserve major and in law school. My son, a history major, works in government security.
There is no excuse, these days, for people to be ignorant. Anything you want to know: the economic issues of the battle of Culloden, how to tat a doily, the history of spinning flax, what kind of seed to feed orioles -- all, all is available in vast array on the internet, probably with YouTube video and a porn section. If you need to know, you can find it. What you need to be taught is when you need to know.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
But, do you not think that our academic institutions have the opportunity, maybe even the duty, to so contrive the learning environment that it is conducive to breadth, as well as depth, of learning?
I'd settle for them acknowledging the opportunity, maybe even the duty, to contrive a learning environment. I work in HE (UK) - it's a business, and it makes money by recruiting and retaining people (let's not make assumptions and formally label them students). Everything else is window dressing in the bottom half of the sector.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Yeah, the internet. A lot is there. A lot is not, a lot is buried pretty deep, fact checking is still an issue. Knowing what to ask and how to ask it is important. For a long time, I was perplexed by the term Google-fu. Until I realized that people don’t know how to ask proper questions.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And you need to know which threads to pull on, to get more. It's all there, but you have to ask in the right way -- like the guy in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
So, it has been said that as one progresses through the academic hierarchy, one learns more and more about less and less. Until, eventually, one knows everything about nothing.
I confess, as I contemplate my educational program, this is not a goal I can fully commit to. Clearly, given the amount of knowledge there is to be had, there will always be room for the specialist expert. But can there also be room for a broad-bandwidth ordinary citizen? And if there is, how, do we best align our educational systems to produce such a being?
I think there are two answers to this.
First, that the statement seems laughable. It is the experience of almost everyone who continues with education beyond childhood that they focus on smaller and smaller areas of study and expertise.
It is absolutely true that someone who has spent several years looking down microscopes at plant leaves might then go and do something completely different - but they're not somehow Aristotle, capable of being entirely proficient in various different fields at the drop of a hat.
A small number of people can do that, but that's not something the vast, vast majority of people can plan for in their own education and it is pretty stupid to try to.
But I think there is another, overlapping answer. And it isn't so much about proficiency and ability as much as curiosity and effort.
Most of us are not going to progress in academic careers (even if that's what we want to do) if we focus on widely different areas of study but then most of us are not going to be academics. Many of us here have the bits of paper to show that we've performed at a particular level at university in some specialist subject.
But then many of us have also wider interests that might never be good enough to meet a university standard.
The key, it seems to me - for one's own mental health and mental flexibility - is to keep learning, keep challenging, keep listening, thinking.
All of that said, there are also some people who have a very narrow focus of learning but who have been able to develop extremely high level skills within that focus - so I'm not entirely sure that a narrow education is necessarily a bad thing. Of course, those who do well with that kind of focus are those with high levels of commitment and curiosity.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Or if on the science ends, can they quote any poetry and also tell us what it means, can they discuss basic sweeps and themes of history? They're all specializing in second year of university now. With the expense of education I understand it, but do not like it.
I think the vast majority of British science graduates will not have done any history for 5-6 years when they graduate - because most British science undergraduate programmes are incredibly prescriptive and the last time they'd have learned anything outside of that framework would have been at school at 16 (and possibly not even then).
It seems to me that many of the North American undergraduate programmes seem to include many more non-science courses - but then (AFAIU) people tend to do more graduate courses there in different subjects. Brits tend to move from science undergraduate to science masters to (sometimes) science doctorate without any bypassing into anything else.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I think it is as mr cheesy says, if a person has high levels of intellectual curiosity,then they will continue learning. Eeven better if this has been backed up by conversation at home, combined with an example from the adults around them of being interested in a wide variety of things, then whatever subjects are focused on, the student will want to continue to enquire and discover throughout life.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think it is as mr cheesy says, if a person has high levels of intellectual curiosity,then they will continue learning. Eeven better if this has been backed up by conversation at home, combined with an example from the adults around them of being interested in a wide variety of things, then whatever subjects are focused on, the student will want to continue to enquire and discover throughout life.
I disagree, in part. Yes, some people will always try to learn more. But environment is a massive factor in anyone's development. Everyone is benefited by a greater exposure to learning and a broader variety of subject. It is those who are less inclined to do so on their own that are most benefited.
Saying those with inclination will find a way is both missing how humans develop and far too close to other, less savoury, applications of that reasoning.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
I have spent the last 36 years at university so I cannot argue against the importance of environment on lifelong learning. That said, there are autodidacts that learn sometimes in spite of their environment. Never before has there been so many opportunities to learn and such easy access to information. This requires the application of good critical thinking skills to discern good information from bad.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
That said, there are autodidacts that learn sometimes in spite of their environment.
Totally true. But it does not follow that everyone will do so.
quote:
Never before has there been so many opportunities to learn and such easy access to information. This requires the application of good critical thinking skills to discern good information from bad.
And that is a massive problem. Critical thinking doesn't typically come from nowhere. It is a honed, environmental skill.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
I am all for autodidacts. More power to them! But, having pursued this path for myself for some time now, I have two observations.
1) You spend a lot of time reinventing a whole lot of wheels.
2) Not everyone, having left school, is at all interested.
As per the rise of populism observation earlier in the thread, and my supposition that a wide general education is the antidote, what is the best way forward?
I notice of my own experience that discussion fora such as this are good motivation. One wants to contribute, but doesn't want to be thought a complete idiot. And that is quite a powerful motivation to learn. Maybe we could do worse than to make a Ship of Fools membership a compulsory attribute for all tertiary level students...
Best wishes, 2RM.
[ 31. January 2018, 17:05: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I am all for autodidacts. More power to them! But, having pursued this path for myself for some time now, I have two observations.
1) You spend a lot of time reinventing a whole lot of wheels.
2) Not everyone, having left school, is at all interested.
Interested still frames this as an individual trait rather than an environmental one.
Whether a person learns within a system or on their own is a separate issue to how they approach learning,
This isn't autodidact v. institutional learning.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Mr Cheesy said:
quote:
But then many of us have also wider interests that might never be good enough to meet a university standard.
If you've got the fees, I can supply the standard. You'll meet it; I have every confidence in you ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
So, a good standard can be achieved by spending £££?
Well, I have some £££ tucked away, so a scale or schedule of your fees would be welcome. My people can then negotiate with your people as to the standard my third-rate mind may be able to reach.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There are various routes to obtain qualifications necessary to undertake a degree course. Anyone can enrol in college courses to obtain a diploma, or to study for A-levels (or equivalent) that they hadn't obtained at school. Many universities offer foundation years, spend a year at university studying a subject until you reach sufficient standard to enter first year. These options cost money, although there would be various scholarship schemes to help some people along.
If you're lucky and you're in a job where further advancement would require a relevant further qualification you may find your employer contributes to the costs of you gaining those qualifications.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
So, a good standard can be achieved by spending £££?
No; sorry, my post was something of an in-joke for people working in the lower reaches of the UK HE sector.
A 'university standard' (see the post I quoted) can be reached by spending £££. And since the university sets the standard, and requires £££ to operate, then the absolute level of that standard is determined by how low it needs to go to fill the courses and retain the students for the duration. Kind of like an imprecise and messy, academic Dutch auction. So, give us your £££ and we'll provide whatever colour piece of paper your heart desires - right up to PhD.
At the bottom of the sector external examiners don't provide absolute reference points to the standard, because we act as externals on each others courses. Professional bodies (the engineering institutions, in my area) grumble a bit, but don't come near the clout that student income £££s command.
I'd be very interested in a view from folks working in the top-half of the UK sector on this - if they feel sufficiently anonymous on here ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 01. February 2018, 18:03: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
One thing to note is that most professionals will do continuing Education to keep abreast in their field. While I do have an MDiv, I also have a Masters in Counseling, which I finally ended up doing. When I first got my Masters in Counseling when it came to pharmaceuticals, the basic message was "we don't know how they work, but they do." Now the message talks about how certain drugs affect certain receptors, how stimulators work, how the brain reuptakes spare proteins and brain synapsis Now that I am retired, there is more knowledge I would like to keep up with. The good news is I go to my local university and take courses for around $5 a credit.
Not bad.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
