The Decaying Evolution of Education...

[GHT]

But rare is the person with such gifts who does much of anything novel with it. These aren't the people who change the world. Not often, anyway.

The title of this thread is: "The Decaying Evolution of Education..." What is decaying, the evolution or the education? I would argue neither. It might seem that the pursuit of higher education for all has proven to be nothing more than a political dream, in the western world, but in Asia and other parts of the world, their thirst for knowledge has transformed their countries.

We seem to have lost sight of the fact that the talent for academic achievement is much like the talent for anything else. The one's who achieve it are those with a talent for it. That doesn't mean to say that success, is exclusive to those with educational achievements, far from it as Chris Dawson will attest to:
Founder, owner and CEO of The Range.
Dawson (born 15 February 1952) is a British businessman; founder, owner and CEO of the British retail chain The Range. Dawson rarely attended school, left without any qualifications, and was barely able to read and write. He started as a market trader in Plymouth, and opened his first, The Range store in 1989. The retail chain has over 100 stores, of which all are under direct ownership of Dawson..
In April 2015, the Sunday Times Rich List reported that his net worth was £1.65 billion.
Dawson is not alone, far from it, we even had a Prime Minister in recent times, John Major, who never attended university. Conversely you can look up many a graduate from the top universities who never exploited their academic achievement. But is Dawson a success and others a failure? Depends on how you define success. At just short of seventy, if I can make it without chemical help, I reckon that's a success, they didn't teach me that at university.

Far from decaying I would argue that it is actually thriving, both our modern world and the thoughtful, provocative and intelligent posts to this thread are a testament to that. And as for success? When countries can resolve their differences round a table and we can dispense with all weapons, that would be a true success of how civilised we have become. I'm no pacifist but one thing that did move me was an article that I once read that proved: If bullets and arms were bread, hunger would be eradicated.

 

[LizzieMaine]

But rare is the person with such gifts who does much of anything novel with it. These aren't the people who change the world. Not often, anyway.

An interesting way to examine this point is to take a look at the fates of the Quiz Kids. The Kids were, for those who may not know, part of a popular radio program during the 1940s, a juvenile version of "Information Please" on which a panel of preternaturally-intelligent children would answer difficult questions submitted by listeners. These kids were quite brilliant, each in their own way -- one was a world-class mathematician before he was ten years old, another had an exhaustive knowledge of orinthology, yet another could quote at length from Shakespeare, and on and on. But few of those kids ever really went on to anything notable -- the main exceptions James Watson, who grew up to win a Nobel Prize for medicine, and Harve Fischman, who grew up to be Hollywood producer-director Harve Bennett.

Most of the rest of the Quiz Kids grew up to live obscure lives in obscure jobs -- some became teachers or college professors, others lingered around the ragged edge of show business, others became clerks or factory hands or housewives. And one, Gerard Darrow, the boy orinthologist, became a tragedy -- dying destitute and alone at the age of forty-seven. These were all brilliant, gifted children -- but very few of them grew into brilliant, gifted adults.

 

[Fading Fast]

An interesting way to examine this point is to take a look at the fates of the Quiz Kids. The Kids were, for those who may not know, part of a popular radio program during the 1940s, a juvenile version of "Information Please" on which a panel of preternaturally-intelligent children would answer difficult questions submitted by listeners. These kids were quite brilliant, each in their own way -- one was a world-class mathematician before he was ten years old, another had an exhaustive knowledge of orinthology, yet another could quote at length from Shakespeare, and on and on. But few of those kids ever really went on to anything notable -- the main exceptions James Watson, who grew up to win a Nobel Prize for medicine, and Harve Fischman, who grew up to be Hollywood producer-director Harve Bennett.

Most of the rest of the Quiz Kids grew up to live obscure lives in obscure jobs -- some became teachers or college professors, others lingered around the ragged edge of show business, others became clerks or factory hands or housewives. And one, Gerard Darrow, the boy orinthologist, became a tragedy -- dying destitute and alone at the age of forty-seven. These were all brilliant, gifted children -- but very few of them grew into brilliant, gifted adults.

Definitely slightly off topic, but to follow on your point, I am amazed at how many parents tell me their child will be this or that - strong willed, smart, technology oriented, successful, etc. - when their child is 2, 3, 4.... I am not judging the child or the parent's view of the child, but the larger context, which is that many, many kids show traits growing up that they seem to lose at a later date and vice versa. We all know the super-smart kid in high school who is not working in a super-smart job today and we all know the just-barely-passed-class kid who is doing something impressive. We had friends who were introverts who are now public speakers and gregarious friends who now seem shy. With this knowledge - which I think most adults have - I am always amazed at the confidence parents have in predicting their children's futures when the child is still so young. And I get that some people don't change much - I'm told by others who knew me as a kid, that I turned out as they would have predicted - it's just the confidence in the prediction that amazing me.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Parents tend to project -- they want their kids to be everything they weren't, and can sometimes really screw the poor kids' lives up in the process.

 

[ChiTownScion]

.... With this knowledge - which I think most adults have - I am always amazed at the confidence parents have in predicting their children's futures when the child is still so young. And I get that some people don't change much - I'm told by others who knew me as a kid, that I turned out as they would have predicted - it's just the confidence in the prediction that amazing me.

Parents tend to project -- they want their kids to be everything they weren't, and can sometimes really screw the poor kids' lives up in the process.

I've seen that: up close, personal, and ugly.

I dated two gals (NOT at the same time!) when I was just starting college. They were younger than I was, and both were certain that they were going to end up as physicians. One was even accepted at the accelerated pre-med program at Northwestern University(2 years of science packed undergrad, followed by guaranteed admission into medical school. A great deal for the highly motivated- and extremely selective.) The other one, on the occasion of her parents taking us out for her birthday, got into a knock down drag out argument with the folks as to whether she would do her residency in general surgery or dermatology (All this taking place before her senior year in high school, mind you!).

Neither one made it into med school. The Northwestern scholar decided that she'd rather write poetry and ended up at a state university. The would- be surgeon ended up as an EMT for a private ambulance company (I understand that, now in her late 50's, she's working on becoming a psychotherapist.). Both sets of parents (and they were bright, hardworking kids) decided early on to push their daughters into medicine, and it didn't work.

As for me: my dad was forever trying to push engineering school on me.. even after I had passed my bar exam and was trying to get a decent full time gig in the field. I have no math or science interest, so it was never going to happen. He had spent his life kicking himself for marrying young and not taking advantage of his GI Bill educational benefits to attend engineering school, settling for a well paying but very blue collar existence.

And I won't even get into it here about the grandmother who was convinced that I should enter the priesthood: I'm sure that my becoming a Presbyterian is the cause of some subterranean spinning on her part.

 

[philosophygirl78]

Imperialism is merely the highest --and final -- stage of capitalism.

And the arena for first place is inching closer for grabs...

 

[philosophygirl78]

And the other aspect of it is this: I had a lot of fun in college!

I don't mean an alcohol fueled spoiled frat boy existence fun, or an unwashed slacker drug crazed fun. I mean, for example, the friendships that have lasted a lifetime. Those Saturdays spent in a library: six hours researching a term paper, and then another six following a thread of intellectual pursuit unrelated to course work. The concerts, plays, guest lecturers, and symposiums. Even the hard work aspect, studying for a course and then emerging with a decent grade... there was a lot of enrichment and fulfillment in that too. It was exhilarating! I couldn't have enjoyed a minute of it if my parents were footing the bill for my education, but perhaps because I spent summers working some of the crappiest factory jobs imaginable, I relished the intellectual achievement aspect of it all.

Can you get all of that outside of a university education? I believe that there are rare individuals of extraordinary focus who do... but they are few and far between. For me, however, I could have never experienced life as it unfolded- and it has been a good one, thus far- without college.

ALL OF IT....

 

[philosophygirl78]

The title of this thread is: "The Decaying Evolution of Education..." What is decaying, the evolution or the education? I would argue neither. It might seem that the pursuit of higher education for all has proven to be nothing more than a political dream, in the western world, but in Asia and other parts of the world, their thirst for knowledge has transformed their countries.

We seem to have lost sight of the fact that the talent for academic achievement is much like the talent for anything else. The one's who achieve it are those with a talent for it. That doesn't mean to say that success, is exclusive to those with educational achievements, far from it as Chris Dawson will attest to:
Founder, owner and CEO of The Range.
Dawson (born 15 February 1952) is a British businessman; founder, owner and CEO of the British retail chain The Range. Dawson rarely attended school, left without any qualifications, and was barely able to read and write. He started as a market trader in Plymouth, and opened his first, The Range store in 1989. The retail chain has over 100 stores, of which all are under direct ownership of Dawson..
In April 2015, the Sunday Times Rich List reported that his net worth was £1.65 billion.
Dawson is not alone, far from it, we even had a Prime Minister in recent times, John Major, who never attended university. Conversely you can look up many a graduate from the top universities who never exploited their academic achievement. But is Dawson a success and others a failure? Depends on how you define success. At just short of seventy, if I can make it without chemical help, I reckon that's a success, they didn't teach me that at university.

Far from decaying I would argue that it is actually thriving, both our modern world and the thoughtful, provocative and intelligent posts to this thread are a testament to that. And as for success? When countries can resolve their differences round a table and we can dispense with all weapons, that would be a true success of how civilised we have become. I'm no pacifist but one thing that did move me was an article that I once read that proved: If bullets and arms were bread, hunger would be eradicated.

There are also the variables of demographics, economic background, culture, and immigration... There will always be a small percentage of a population that will persevere no matter what circumstances arise, but that has never been the case for the majority. I have traveled and lived in several countries outside the US; S America, Europe, and visited East Asia. I would argue that the corruption of the education system has indeed infiltrated those cultures, though they still have strong cultural values in many regards.

I think it would be impossible to cross reference different countries and cultures with this topic, as that would take forever and have so many paths... Perhaps a better title would be: The decaying evolution of education in the United States compared to previous world dominating societies? not sure... its been a long day...

 

[HudsonHawk]

But while there's a vast amount of knowledge a mile wide, it's an inch deep in most cases. Try to find advanced (by which I mean upper level) statistical help/ info online. For basic stats it's there, multiple times over so the learner can look at multiple sources. But in advanced stats? Good luck.

This is true for most subjects. You can find "cocktail party knowledge" of just about anything on Google, but finding advanced information requires a much deeper search.

 

[Bad Pit]

...Try to find advanced (by which I mean upper level) statistical help/ info online. For basic stats it's there, multiple times over so the learner can look at multiple sources. But in advanced stats?...

Try one or more of the following:
• Google Advanced Search
• Google Scholar
• The Distant Librarian blog: Advanced options for Google Scholar

Hope this helps.

 

[sheeplady]

Try one or more of the following:
• Google Advanced Search
• Google Scholar
• The Distant Librarian blog: Advanced options for Google Scholar

Hope this helps.

While I thank you for the information, I reassure you that the type of help information I am referring to isn't available from such sources, or I would gladly refer my doctoral students to it.

Not everything is in the web, and Google search is far from a democracy. Even "advanced" and "scholar" versions.

And I might add, much in depth knowledge, while it might be available in digital form is locked in journals such that consumers pay for it twice.

 

[philosophygirl78]

I am of the opinion that gathering sources is not sufficient to decide on an ideal or belief. There is the component of individual assessment and critical thinking, that although classified as part of the current education curriculum is far from substantial to meet its foundational demand.

IOW, learning how to think (on various levels) at times means more that what to think.

What do you think @sheeplady

 

[LizzieMaine]

A lot of libraries nowadays are purging or have purged their backfiles of magazines and journals, likely figuring that online sources more than cover the needed access. Which may be fine for recent stuff, but try finding, say, a long-defunct sociology journal from the thirties in one of these systems. I had to do that once, and ended up having to get a photocopy of one of the few surviving bound volumes of that journal at the Library of Congress.

(And yes, it was free -- all I had to pay was the postage. It pays to have friends at the LOC.)

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

A lot of libraries nowadays are purging or have purged their backfiles of magazines and journals, likely figuring that online sources more than cover the needed access. Which may be fine for recent stuff, but try finding, say, a long-defunct sociology journal from the thirties in one of these systems. I had to do that once, and ended up having to get a photocopy of one of the few surviving bound volumes of that journal at the Library of Congress.

(And yes, it was free -- all I had to pay was the postage. It pays to have friends at the LOC.)

That's also happened with many of the books. And because nowadays libraries can closely track what books are checked out and how often, they've tailored their holdings based on what's more "popular." As a result, the nonfiction section of many libraries, for example, are now mainly self-help books.

You're lucky. Some years ago I was looking for a book (published in 1931) which was somewhat hard to find so I thought that I would have the Library of Congress photocopy it. I forgot what the rates were at the time but the upshot is that it would have cost me $85 for them make a photocopy! It was actually cheaper for me to get an original copy which I eventually did.

 

[MikeKardec]

Because of my job experience I was able to teach some College/Uni classes in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I don't have a masters or Phd. However, I do have an eagle eye for spotting missing elements, especially organizational or managerial elements. I also am very involved in an educational non profit that is designed around inspiring high school students and helping them to direct their educations and futures, so I have a lot of contact with students and parents.

Within the first week of teaching at the college level I noticed some really fundamental problems. The most important was that my students, their parents, and the college's professors and administrators each had utterly different goals in mind for what the college experience was going to deliver. None, however, were the least bit interested in discovering or understanding the other's point of view, they all just went forward blindly yet intentionally in their own definition of reality. As a guy that has had to make complicated systems of personalities and goals function cohesively, I recognize that this is terrible way to run an organization.

Students were also insistent on graduating but didn't seem to care if they learned anything. They did very little work, demanded good grades, and felt they were owed a diploma for spending four years and tens of thousands of dollars on screwing around. It was common that they treated school as a (very expensive) camp that postponed adulthood without really preparing them for it. Most had vague grandiose ideas of changing the world yet spent all their time (and many of their years after graduation) skiing, mountain biking and river rafting ... the sort of things that more focused people do on their 2 week vacations.

From the outside, the point of view of my instructors when I was in college, I'm sure I often looked foolish, but me and my cohorts at California Institute of the Arts were ferocious about learning and doing projects and taking in every fact and educational experience we could. If I'd seen one day of that in my students in two to three years of teaching I'd have been happy.

In the liberal arts schools I worked at, I never saw any suggestion that my students were being prepared to function in any career whatsoever. In fact I'd say that what they were being taught was as actively anti reality/economy/career as possible for institutions that were supposedly preparing students for their future. Many of the institutions were far too expensive for an education that didn't lead to some sort of increased income. I'm a great believer in college being a foundation for citizenship and a future in a multitude of roles but every place I taught made that really hard to come by and pandered to the students least responsible or forward thinking tendencies while all the time doing everything it could to tell them they were too good for the world ... unless they became college professors, of course. It was all pretty disillusioning.

The places and subjects I taught in didn't, however, seem the least bit focused on servicing the economy of anything except perhaps the tuition paid to the college.

 

[T Jones]

A college degree is a coveted prize to have. Definitely go for it. But nothing beats hard work and loving what you do for being content and making money.

 

[ChiTownScion]

I was raised in Chicago, and educated by the Sisters of Mercy and the Christian Brothers of Ireland, and never expected to attend college-
my father had been killed in a car accident years earlier and my mother suffered a stroke at thirty-a discipline problem with the CBI,
and the draft had to be dealt with first, but the Army dangled a West Point regular army appointment-until my school record showed Uncle Sam
I wasn't cadet material. When asked why I hadn't done better academically or participated in sports, I simply replied I brought $10 home every night
and college was for the rich. My uncle had taken a degree after WWII but he was an exception-none of the other men had. The Army turned me around
and I aced college after the war. Despite the hardships of youth and all, I think I profited more by having been born on the wrong side of the tracks.

Had a lot of Nam vets around me as both an undergrad and a law student. More than any other factor, they were a great force in motivating me to really apply myself and knuckle down. They were my elder brothers and often my closest friends who taught me a lot by example. The message, both expressed and implied was that they had been through a lot in life and were determined to advance themselves through education, and that slackers who wasted class time and were an impediment to that end were not appreciated.

This leads to a corollary to one of my overall impressions about my entire academic experience: you learn more from your peers than your profs.

 

[Retired EE]

I'm still a believer in university/college-level education. Though, a problem I have with contemporary approaches to education is over utilization of online classes and digital textbooks. My personal experience (having taken over 60 undergraduate and graduate classes) is I still believe in a human teacher standing in front of a chalkboard (or dry erase board) and using bound, paper-based books to study from (though I could probably adapt to digital textbooks). As a student, I believe I received more intellectual stimulation from human professor-student interchanges than a computer-student interface.

My approach to post secondary, advanced education was two pronged: 1) study a subject area that would lead to an interesting, stimulating career and 2) broaden my intellectual horizons by taking classes in diverse subjects (such as literature, ancient and modern history, archeology, anthropology, philosophy, art history, foreign languages, creative writing, psychology, et al.)

Having a strong interest in science at a very young age, and having a good high school academic record, I studied electrical engineering (to include chemistry/physics/advanced mathematics/computer science), focussing on electro-physics at the graduate level.

Looking back on my career, I am relatively happy with the path I took. Essentially, I had a career in the area I studied in college. I interacted with some fascinating individuals along the way (Nobel winner, Macarthur Prize winner, and caused a well known 20th century physicist to fall asleep during one of my talks). As a side note, one public speaking lesson I learned was, that even though it calmed the nerves, having a pint of beer during lunch prior to going on stage for an afternoon scientific talk could lead to the following issues:

I was a strong advocate that my 3 kids would go to college. Though, one of the three didn't go to college, but has had a fairly good life (including a lovely wife and two young children) due to (I think) a strong work ethic. However, having lived to nearly 60 years old, I certainly understand that there are many, many other paths to happiness-- to include not going to college and pursuing other passions, instead. The other lesson is that life can be "nonlinear"-- i.e. life, and the future, is not predictable.

 

[GHT]

I certainly understand that there are many, many other paths to happiness-- to include not going to college and pursuing other passions, instead. The other lesson is that life can be "nonlinear"-- i.e. life, and the future, is not predictable.

My lifelong friend and near neighbour, a science graduate, has been a teacher all his working life. He took retirement at 60 and nowadays, he's a very busy volunteer at a preserved heritage railway. He tells me that he can't wait to go to 'work,' where he has learned a new skill, that of driving a steam train up and down ten miles of track. He comes home filthy from the coal dust, but blissfully happy.

 

[Bushman]

In the liberal arts schools I worked at, I never saw any suggestion that my students were being prepared to function in any career whatsoever. In fact I'd say that what they were being taught was as actively anti reality/economy/career as possible for institutions that were supposedly preparing students for their future. Many of the institutions were far too expensive for an education that didn't lead to some sort of increased income. I'm a great believer in college being a foundation for citizenship and a future in a multitude of roles but every place I taught made that really hard to come by and pandered to the students least responsible or forward thinking tendencies while all the time doing everything it could to tell them they were too good for the world ... unless they became college professors, of course. It was all pretty disillusioning.

The places and subjects I taught in didn't, however, seem the least bit focused on servicing the economy of anything except perhaps the tuition paid to the college.

This isn't the first time I've seen this, and it probably won't be the last, but as a student who had received his Associates in the liberal arts a couple years back, and now working on his bachelors in journalism... the liberal arts and sciences have become so much more than they used to be. Sure, you still have the art majors, the painters, musicians, philosophers, day dream believers, and English majors (the kind of studies even I don't see how one could make a career of), but now.. you also have the sciences thrown in with these guys. Your historians, your chemists, physicists, mathematicians... the kind of people who built the atomic bomb! You have your engineers, your economists, your geologists, your climatologists, your computing technicians, the people who built the tech that got us to the Moon. Frankly, I believe the liberal arts, unless you become a physicist or economist, are vastly under appreciated and under funded. Far too many people going for mundane business degrees because that's what they feel they must do, rather than pushing their potential, pushing their minds, and doing what they want to do. The "easy" route is almost always never the right one.