tjhorton@ai.toronto.edu ("Timothy J. Horton") (02/23/88)
A comprehensive answer to educational rednecks: "Teens need less school -- not more" by Frank Jones Toronto Star, Feb 22, page C1 "I've just got the scoop on a new government report of secondary education. This report recommends dropping the school-leaving age to 14, closing down half the high schools in Metro (Toronto), and allowing kids to choose which teachers to fire. Classes will be scheduled in the evenings, so as not to interfere with stu- dents' working hours, and kids will be paid $300 a week to attend school. "There I go, dreaming again. There is no such report -- worse luck. The only kind of reports you'll get out of (the govern- ment) are ones crying out for return to basics, for stricter ex- ams, for keeping kids in school longer. And do you know why? Because all these reports are written by people who loved high school, who got top marks and sailed through to university. And their solution is always: everyone would be fine if everyone was like me. "The latest report of this kind was produced last week by George Radwanski, a former editor of this paper who tells me he got good marks and enjoyed his school days. True to form, his report agonizes over the "plight" or working-class children, urging stiffer and sterner doses of schooling. And what Radwanski and all these other report writers can't seem to come to grips with is that, for most teenagers, high school is a perverse and alien experience involving years of boredom and frustration. "Just think about it: At the very time when your glands are pump- ing furiously and your energy and emotions are at a lifetime peak, society plucks you down at an uncomfortable desk and force-feeds you dreary lectures on subjects in which you have not the least interest. "The teenage years, in fact, are a state of purgatory invented in this century. In the past people went with relatively little discomfort from childhood into adulthood. Now we have this stage of frozen animation when, in the interests of adult peace and quiet, young people are deprived of all responsibilities and rights and confined to institutions of mainly useless learning. "Then, to keep the escapers in line -- the ones either too dumb to absorb anything or smart enough to see through it -- adults in- vented the pejorative term "drop-out". "If I quite my job, no one calls me a drop-out. If I leave a church I am not called a drop-out. Only if I chose to leave school according to my own timetable rather than the institution's am I a drop-out. "It is quite safe, apparently, to make any kind of derogatory re- mark about these "failures". Radwanski quotes a Goldfarb survey thus; "The drop-out in general does not think in abstract terms but in terms that are visible and measurable. He is confused and alienated by concepts that are overly intellectualized." Sounds to me like a good definition of someone with down-to-earth common sense. "Radwanski's suggestions include starting children in school at 3 (in other words, lengthening the sentence) and doing away with streaming because it penalizes working-class kids. "Now I know very well there are thousands of gifted high school teachers out there who are doing everything in the power to fan that spark of interest in their students. And often it's enough to encounter just one of those excellent teachers during your school years to open a student's eyes to life's possibilities. "But isn't it time we recognized that for lots of kids the spark is never lit, that there are limits to what we can expect our high schools to achieve? "To start with social engineering is a very dubious proposition. For most kids coming from homes where learning is not valued, it's game over by the time they start kindergarten For the few who want to break that mold, we should give every sort of indivi- dual attention. "Abolishing streaming would be nothing but a disaster because it would turn off the minority of students who really like school, the super-achievers Pretty soon, they'd all be in private schools. "For the rest, the real need is to get them reading and writing and then get them through high school as quickly and painlessly as possible and out into the world of jobs; ... for most of us the real interest in ideas and knowledge comes later, when the hectic teen years are behind us. And that's why we should cut back on teenage schooling and put even more effort into selling continuing education -- getting people back into school when they're good and ready.
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (02/27/88)
in article <1988Feb23.045155.16293@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, tjhorton@ai.toronto.edu ("Timothy J. Horton") says: > A comprehensive answer to educational rednecks: > > "Teens need less school -- not more" > by Frank Jones > Toronto Star, Feb 22, page C1 ... > > "For the rest, the real need is to get them reading and writing > and then get them through high school as quickly and painlessly > as possible and out into the world of jobs; ... for most of us > the real interest in ideas and knowledge comes later, when the > hectic teen years are behind us. And that's why we should cut > back on teenage schooling and put even more effort into selling > continuing education -- getting people back into school when > they're good and ready. Somewhat good point. After all, the average age of U.S. college students is 26 (or somewhere around there). Norman Spinrad once wrote about a society where the late teen years were used to figure out what you wanted to do with your life, instead of schooling. However, there's a problem. I know several people who've managed to earn their GED (high school equivalency) in their spare time. But if you want to go further, our universities and employers are not up to the task. For example, I know someone who works in the local power plant who's interested in going for a CS degree. He's reasonably intelligent, quite interested (he's picked up enough about programming to do all their control software, he's interested in learning the "why" of it now), and fairly motivated (working in a power plant is BORING most of the time... just sit there and watch dials). The problem? He has a wife and a 5 year old kid, and a picture-book house in the suburbs with a 20 year mortgage. Why's that a problem? Because he can't afford to quit work. The power plant isn't willing to schedule him so that he'd have time to go to school -- and the local university doesn't have night classes for the more advanced CS courses (they've tried, but only 4 or 5 people ever registered for the class -- automatic cancellation of the class, at a public university). He's just an example, it's a general problem, except possibly in a few big-city areas (in which only a small percentage of our population lives). Read Robert Frost's poem "The Road Untaken" if you didn't understand what I said above.... -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg detonated by the mention of any Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 subject, resulting in an explosion Lafayette, LA 70509 of at least 5,000 words.
billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) (12/18/89)
From bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): > How is an ignorant person supposed to have cultivated interests > in "irrelevant" subjects without being exposed to those subjects? How about letting individuals determine their OWN interests?? > I am almost willing to agree that they [students] at least shouldn't > be "captive" audiences. That would be no problem if they would not > have to be supported by the people who had the responsibility and > self-discipline as young adults to learn the "irrelevant" material. Hey, this may come as a surprise, but 99% or more of the students who resent being part of a captive audience would like nothing better than an opportunity to participate in an efficient system by which they could become self-supporting as quickly as possible. If you offer these people the opportunity to ditch all the bullshit and get onto the fast track to financial achievement, they'd gladly load up on student loans and pay back ALL the costs, plus interest. It absolutely astounds me that the educational system takes people who are living in the depths of poverty in the filthiest of ghettoes and insists that they study wars of previous centuries, Shakespeare, etc.!!! What these people need is intensive economic training so they can make better lives for themselves, not enough bullshit to convince them that they are completely wasting their time inside that classroom. > | No, our educational system > | is doing a FINE job of producing pregnant teenage dropouts who give > | birth to heroin-addicted babies -- why should we change a thing??? > > Our educational system has its problems, but I think that the culture > students _live in_ bears far more blame for the above than the school > where they spend only 30 hours/week. Bullshit. The educational system turns them off to school, and thereby sees to it that another generation remains in poverty. Education is the mechanism for financial upward mobility in our society, but many users find this to be a ridiculous suggestion given the extent to which effort is directed toward things which have no practical significance to their lives or wallets whatsoever. If the educational system would get a good solid dose of reality and understand that its students are not the Kennedys and the Helmsleys and the Rockefellers, but people who are trying to make enough money to make a reasonable life for themselves, then the day when all of us ARE wealthy enough to sit around and study nonproductive topics will arrive a whole lot sooner. Let the Rockefellers study Picasso and Rembrandt -- they can afford to -- but most of us CANNOT. Remember -- ours is a system which can't afford to provide prenatal care for indigent mothers. It can't afford to shelter people who are living on the street. It can't afford to give its elderly enough to keep them from having to eat dog food. On what basis can it afford to hold back those people who would like nothing better than to get into a position in which they can start paying more taxes??? Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (12/19/89)
In article <7478@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: >From bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): >> How is an ignorant person supposed to have cultivated interests >> in "irrelevant" subjects without being exposed to those subjects? > > How about letting individuals determine their OWN interests?? Well, they already _do_ know themselves at least well enough to know what their interests are, don't they. In their limited experience they will be interested in some subset of what they have been exposed to. There is nothing prohibiting them from pursuing their own interests. >> I am almost willing to agree that they [students] at least shouldn't >> be "captive" audiences. That would be no problem if they would not >> have to be supported by the people who had the responsibility and >> self-discipline as young adults to learn the "irrelevant" material. > > Hey, this may come as a surprise, but 99% or more of the students > who resent being part of a captive audience would like nothing better > than an opportunity to participate in an efficient system by which > they could become self-supporting as quickly as possible. If you > offer these people the opportunity to ditch all the bullshit and > get onto the fast track to financial achievement, they'd gladly > load up on student loans and pay back ALL the costs, plus interest. The 99% statistic is probably not grounded in some recognized sampling method, but I will address your point and not quibble over the minor details. There is some confusion between `self-supporting' and the `fast-track to financial achievement.' `Self-supporting' doesn't seem to require the BIG BUCKS, and making the BIG money doesn't depend on a college education (or degree :-). If you just want to make money, then, with a high school diploma and sufficient drive and determination, one's future is made. > It absolutely astounds me that the educational system takes people > who are living in the depths of poverty in the filthiest of ghettoes > and insists that they study wars of previous centuries, Shakespeare, > etc.!!! So an elitist would contend that a poor person is not capable of appreciating history, or literature. That is only for the upper classes in the suburbs -- the leaders of tomorrow. Po' folk in the ghetto are only good for being trained to be laborers, eh? > What these people need is intensive economic training so they They should become economists? > can make better lives for themselves, Money, money, money. That is really _all_ you can think about. If the quality of one's life is measured in dollars and cents, then it really is rather worthless, isn't it? A better life could also consist of being able to appreciate better literature, oh, but I forgot, that's just for suburban folks, isn't it. > not enough bullshit to convince > them that they are completely wasting their time inside that classroom. Your narrowness of vision is only exceeded by your intransigence. >> | No, our educational system >> | is doing a FINE job of producing pregnant teenage dropouts who give >> | birth to heroin-addicted babies -- why should we change a thing??? >> >> Our educational system has its problems, but I think that the culture >> students _live in_ bears far more blame for the above than the school >> where they spend only 30 hours/week. > > Bullshit. The educational system turns them off to school, and > thereby sees to it that another generation remains in poverty. Ahh.. there is no `culture of poverty,' then. Poverty is inflicted on people by the educational system. Gee, and I thought there were poor people _before_ there was an educational system, too. > Education is the mechanism for financial upward mobility in our But you just said that it is the mechanism that keeps whole generations of people in actual poverty. I guess the law of the excluded middle is just more irrelevant coursework. > society, but many users find this to be a ridiculous suggestion > given the extent to which effort is directed toward things which Gee, don't our wise students understand that the median income of college graduates is higher than the median income of non-college graduates? Even those college graduates who have to read actual _books_ in college that they (and you'll find this hard to believe) don't actually want to read! Isn't this _reality_ enough to convince even the most intransigent of our students that they should do something that they might not actually _like_ so that they might benefit in the long term? > have no practical significance to their lives or wallets whatsoever. There you go again. This is really pitiful. At least we see here an inkling that there _may_ be some meaningful distinction that can be drawn between one's life and one's income. Regards, -- Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | luxury than of arms, they lose bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu | their state. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli
billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) (12/20/89)
From bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): >>> How is an ignorant person supposed to have cultivated interests >>> in "irrelevant" subjects without being exposed to those subjects? >> How about letting individuals determine their OWN interests?? > There is nothing prohibiting them from pursuing their own interests. Except possibly the fact that they are being forced to waste their time pursuing Mr. Blalick's interests instead... > If you just want to > make money, then, with a high school diploma and sufficient drive > and determination, one's future is made. This is an extremely high-risk strategy with a low probability of succeeding, and hence constitutes a red herring. Try again. >> It absolutely astounds me that the educational system takes people >> who are living in the depths of poverty in the filthiest of ghettoes >> and insists that they study wars of previous centuries, Shakespeare, >> etc.!!! > > So an elitist would contend that a poor person is not capable of > appreciating history, or literature. That is only for the upper > classes in the suburbs -- the leaders of tomorrow. Po' folk > in the ghetto are only good for being trained to be laborers, eh? People in the ghetto are good for being anything they want to be; however, one of the most important things they want to be is less poverty-stricken. Wasting their time and money on history and literature does not realistically address their needs. Please note also that nothing prohibits anyone from acquiring this sort of information at their local library, be they rich, poor, etc.; not shoving this stuff down people's throats does not imply that nobody can ever know the stuff. > If the quality of one's life is measured in dollars and cents, > then it really is rather worthless, isn't it? A better life > could also consist of being able to appreciate better literature, Sure, once there exists a state of financial well-being. Notice that the highest levels of interest in the humanities have existed in conditions within which people perceive themselves as rich. The Athenians were able to sit around philosophizing because they had enslaved enough other people to make themselves rich. In the future, the same conditions will be created by the "enslavement" of artificially intelligent robots. Once people no longer have to worry about things financial, their attention and interest turns VOLUNTARILY toward the humanities. Clearly this is far from the case as far as ghetto dwellers are concerned; to present something other than a fast track to financial success to ghetto-dwellers constitutes tremendous insensitivity toward education users, as well as a massive waste of educational resources. >> Bullshit. The educational system turns them off to school, and >> thereby sees to it that another generation remains in poverty. > > Ahh.. there is no `culture of poverty,' then. Poverty is inflicted on > people by the educational system. Gee, and I thought there were poor > people _before_ there was an educational system, too. Hey, can you read? The above does NOT say that the educational system causes poverty; it says instead that the educational system is instrumental in its perpetuation. >> Education is the mechanism for financial upward mobility in our >> society, but many users find this to be a ridiculous suggestion >> given the extent to which effort is directed toward things which > > Gee, don't our wise students understand that the median income of > college graduates is higher than the median income of non-college > graduates? Even those college graduates who have to read actual > _books_ in college that they (and you'll find this hard to believe) > don't actually want to read! Isn't this _reality_ enough to > convince even the most intransigent of our students that they > should do something that they might not actually _like_ so that > they might benefit in the long term? Few understand this, since the educational system does not bother to produce rationales for the structure of its coursework, much less see to it that students understand that rationale. As far as students are concerned, they are attending specific classes because they will be imprisoned for failing to do so, because these classes are required, and so on. Of those who do understand, many judge the amount of bullshit involved to be greater than they are willing to tolerate, and opt instead for the sale and/or consumption of drugs. These people are severely stressed out as it is, just from having to live in the ghetto; they do NOT need the educational system piling additional bullshit on their backs. Education must respond meaningfully to the context in which it is to be consumed. I submit that if a person feels the need to take the fast track to professional employment, the educational system should not stand in that person's way. If that person later becomes filthy rich and starts to wonder about humanities courses and the meaning of life, then the system should be ready to serve then as well. But trying to shove things down the throats of unwilling users will result only in alienating the users and wasting a lot of valuable educational resources in the process. Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
mjl@cs.rit.edu (12/21/89)
In article <7478@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: > Hey, this may come as a surprise, but 99% or more of the students > who resent being part of a captive audience would like nothing better > than an opportunity to participate in an efficient system by which > they could become self-supporting as quickly as possible. If you > offer these people the opportunity to ditch all the bullshit and > get onto the fast track to financial achievement, they'd gladly > load up on student loans and pay back ALL the costs, plus interest. > > It absolutely astounds me that the educational system takes people > who are living in the depths of poverty in the filthiest of ghettoes > and insists that they study wars of previous centuries, Shakespeare, > etc.!!! What these people need is intensive economic training so they > can make better lives for themselves, not enough bullshit to convince > them that they are completely wasting their time inside that classroom. This takes the cake. I teach at one of the most stridently career oriented institutions in the land. RIT unabashedly proclaims that its primary mission is the preparation of graduates for careers in a variety of professions from engineering and computer science to graphic arts and photography. Yet the vast majority of my faculty colleagues would recoil in horror at the thought of providing the kind of "education" Bill Wolfe advocates. It's all summed up in RIT's motto: "To earn a living and live a life." Both of these aspects are crucial our view of effective undergraduate education. In particular, career oriented schools have an obligation to expose their students to a wider spectrum of ideas than can be found in a single professional discipline. Curricula designed with mere utilitarian concerns risk turning a college into a glorified trade school. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with trade schools, but they make no pretense of educating their graduates: they provide specific, narrowly focused training. Undergraduate institutions are held to a higher standard, that of preparing young people for a life in which a career is but one component, albeit an important one. Those who wish to partake of the benefits accruing to a bachelors degree must be willing to meet the demands such degrees impose. If at times this means taking an "irrelevant" course or two, that's part of the price one pays to be educated instead of trained. (And it's amazing how often these "irrelevant" courses come to be viewed as essential to a well-rounded life). Mike Lutz Rochester Institute of Technology mjl@cs.rit.edu Mike Lutz Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY UUCP: {rutgers,cornell}!rochester!rit!mjl INTERNET: mjlics@ultb.isc.rit.edu
bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (12/21/89)
In article <7492@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: >From bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): >> If you just want to >> make money, then, with a high school diploma and sufficient drive >> and determination, one's future is made. > > This is an extremely high-risk strategy with a low probability of > succeeding, and hence constitutes a red herring. Try again. I disagree. You state that bored students drop out of school and sell drugs. Do you mean to imply that selling drugs (something that you contend these students are willing to do) is less risky than selling, uh, real estate? This is no red herring, you are trying to avoid the issue that the students might lack the drive and determination to make a legal buck, opting instead for the fast, big money of drug trafficking due to greed, impatience, etc. The inability to delay gratification is not a sign of maturity. >... > > People in the ghetto are good for being anything they want to be; Unless they want to become an historian, a writer, etc. > however, one of the most important things they want to be is less > poverty-stricken. Wasting their time and money on history and > literature does not realistically address their needs. You have a unidimensional view of education. Education is not just for training workers, but also (and more importantly) for producing a mature adult citizen capable of understanding the issues which confront his nation -- an informed electorate, and an adult who has been provided with the necessary tools for pursuing a lifetime of learning. These two goals you seem to reject out of hand allowing only that students should be bred to some trade. >> If the quality of one's life is measured in dollars and cents, >> then it really is rather worthless, isn't it? A better life >> could also consist of being able to appreciate better literature, > > Sure, once there exists a state of financial well-being. Notice > that the highest levels of interest in the humanities have existed > in conditions within which people perceive themselves as rich. The > Athenians were able to sit around philosophizing because they had > enslaved enough other people to make themselves rich. So the ancient Athenians sat around philosophizing, eh? I agree that there must be sufficient leisure for a meaningful pursuit of the arts and humanities, but I think that a leisure class is also prone to Epicureanism (sitting around pleasing oneself). I don't perceive myself to be rich, but, the leisure time that I have, I use to pursue the humanities, etc. I think that our new leisure class, bred to a trade and provided with no intellectual tools for appreciating the arts and humanities, etc. would more likely turn to hedonistic pursuits than devote their time to literature, history, etc. > humanities. Clearly this is far from the case as far as ghetto dwellers > are concerned; to present something other than a fast track to financial > success to ghetto-dwellers constitutes tremendous insensitivity toward > education users, as well as a massive waste of educational resources. Please define the "fast track to financial success." How much, how fast, and what percentage of the population of "ghetto dwellers" will accept that as being _both_ a) fast enough, and b) successful enough? Now you say: > Hey, can you read? The above does NOT say that the educational > system causes poverty; it says instead that the educational system > is instrumental in its perpetuation. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Then you said: >>> Education is the mechanism for financial upward mobility in our ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> society, but many users find this to be a ridiculous suggestion ~~~~~~~ >>> given the extent to which effort is directed toward things which So, which is it? Does it perpetuate poverty or provide financial upward mobility? >> >> Gee, don't our wise students understand that the median income of >> college graduates is higher than the median income of non-college >> graduates? Even those college graduates who have to read actual >> _books_ in college that they (and you'll find this hard to believe) >> don't actually want to read! Isn't this _reality_ enough to >> convince even the most intransigent of our students that they >> should do something that they might not actually _like_ so that >> they might benefit in the long term? > > Few understand this, since the educational system does not bother > to produce rationales for the structure of its coursework, much less > see to it that students understand that rationale. What? Our mature, rational students -- people who can design their own curriculum -- cannot figure out the rationale for the courses that are currently offered? This doesn't strike you as at all inconsistent? > As far as students > are concerned, they are attending specific classes because they will > be imprisoned for failing to do so, because these classes are required, > and so on. So these students who can design their own curriculum cannot seem to generalize the process to understand the design of the current curriculum? These are the people who you'd have in charge of their own education -- people who cannot understand why they need to take Algebra, or who won't take it because it is "hard?" > Of those who do understand, many judge the amount of bullshit > involved to be greater than they are willing to tolerate, and opt instead > for the sale and/or consumption of drugs. Any excuse will do, neh? One wonders just how much "irrelevancy" they would be willing to tolerate. Can you say epsilon? > Education must respond meaningfully to the context in which it is to > be consumed. I submit that if a person feels the need to take the fast > track to professional employment, ~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am sure you mean just employment, since the term "professional" implies a certain amount of education (including ethics which you probably file under "BS"). > the educational system should not stand > in that person's way. If that person later becomes filthy rich and starts > to wonder about humanities courses and the meaning of life, then the system > should be ready to serve then as well. Meaning that none but the "filthy rich" (an interesting turn of phrase for somebody who is apparently motivated solely by money) can have an interest in the humanities? -- Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | luxury than of arms, they lose bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu | their state. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli
perry@apollo.HP.COM (Jim Perry) (12/22/89)
In article <7492@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: > Education must respond meaningfully to the context in which it is to > be consumed. I submit that if a person feels the need to take the fast > track to professional employment, the educational system should not stand > in that person's way. If that person later becomes filthy rich and starts > to wonder about humanities courses and the meaning of life, then the system > should be ready to serve then as well. But trying to shove things down the > throats of unwilling users will result only in alienating the users and > wasting a lot of valuable educational resources in the process. Let's bring this back to specifics. Employers have certain requirements that they want their employees to meet. In the computer software industry the prerequisite to "professional employment" is generally a bachelor's degree, often explicitly a BSCS "or equivalent". Those four letters, BSCS, carry a lot of baggage, and don't just mean a piece of paper. There's the implication of four years of regimented study across a spectrum of disciplines, generally concentrating specifically but not exclusively on CS (or SE, if you will, though that's rarer). The expectation is that you will have the breadth of experience represented by typical college distributive requirements. I'm not a hiring manager, but as an engineer I am involved in interviewing and approving new hires. I think my criteria are not out of line with those of others in the business. I wouldn't hire a graduate of a program such as you are advocating. Put that on your fast track and smoke it. There are various academic reasons for distributive requirements, or that OS courses are part of engineering curricula, and we've gone over those. Like it or not, that's what a Bachelor's degree entails, and what employers expect it to entail. There's your bottom line, as it affects your pocketbook. You want the big professional bucks ASAP, you'll have to take humanities courses and you may as well try to get something out of them. I welcome dissenting opinions from others in the business (not students, not academics, we're talking professional fast track here). In a pinch, I'll accept consenting opinions :-) [Naturally, every individual is different, and I know many gifted programmers/engineers who never made it through college at all but that I'd love to have working for/with me. I don't know that I'd interview them based solely on a resume, though...] - Jim Perry perry@apollo.hp.com HP/Apollo, Chelmsford MA This particularly rapid unintelligible patter isn't generally heard and if it is it doesn't matter.
billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) (12/22/89)
From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): > Do you mean to imply that selling drugs (something that > you contend these students are willing to do) is less risky than > selling, uh, real estate? Selling real estate, considering that one is living in the ghetto, is not likely to be an exceptionally profitable means of existence. Selling drugs is risky (somewhat), but the rewards are very high (thousands of dollars per week). Hence the risk/reward ratio is considerably more favorable. > This is no red herring, you are trying to > avoid the issue that the students might lack the drive and determination > to make a legal buck, opting instead for the fast, big money of drug > trafficking due to greed, impatience, etc. The problem is that even if they do have the drive and determination, there is enough irrelevant bullshit to go through to make them think twice about the "legal" route. As a consequence people become drug dealers rather than going into the various professions they would naturally have chosen in the absence of unnecessary barriers. >> People in the ghetto are good for being anything they want to be; > > Unless they want to become an historian, a writer, etc. That's fine, too; anyone who wants to do this should be free to do it, using a program which sends them straight into their field of choice. This differs sharply from the Bralick method, in which everyone must study lots of BS which is irrelevant to their interests, whatever those interests might be. > Education is not > just for training workers, but also (and more importantly) for > producing a mature adult citizen capable of understanding the > issues which confront his nation -- an informed electorate, and > an adult who has been provided with the necessary tools for pursuing > a lifetime of learning. These two goals you seem to reject out of > hand allowing only that students should be bred to some trade. I advocate ensuring that students are able to search the literature in their fields in order to solve practical problems, and that a system of continuing education be set up in order to provide lifelong learning; this process should document continuing education in a way which is as portable among employers as university degrees are today. There are many means of becoming politically informed which do not involve required nonproductive topics -- reading the newspapers is one of the best means of preparing to vote upon the topics of the day. > So the ancient Athenians sat around philosophizing, eh? I agree that > there must be sufficient leisure for a meaningful pursuit of the > arts and humanities, but I think that a leisure class is also > prone to Epicureanism (sitting around pleasing oneself). I don't > perceive myself to be rich, but, the leisure time that I have, I > use to pursue the humanities, etc. I think that our new leisure > class, bred to a trade and provided with no intellectual tools for > appreciating the arts and humanities, etc. would more likely turn > to hedonistic pursuits than devote their time to literature, history, > etc. Obviously you consider literature, history, and the like to provide pleasure to you as a user; mechanisms exist (word of mouth, commercial promotion, etc.) by which things which give pleasure are propagated to the widest possible audience. Thus, what you appear to be afraid of is the possibility that literature, history, and such cannot compete effectively for the minds of people in a free and open market. > Please define the "fast track to financial success." A program which will provide comprehensive professional training in the profession of the user's choice, which is minimal with respect to time required and with respect to cost of training. Comprehensive coverage specifically includes preparation for a lifetime of continuing education within that profession, and knowledge of how to go about preparing for an alternate profession if this is ever desired. > So, which is it? Does [education] perpetuate poverty or provide > financial upward mobility? Both; for a user who possesses the extraordinary motivation to overcome the mountains of bullshit, it provides upward mobility. For the user who justifiably asks why it is necessary to sit through that amount of foul-smelling material, it provides only barriers of bullshit which serve to perpetuate poverty. > What? Our mature, rational students -- people who can design their own > curriculum -- cannot figure out the rationale for the courses that are > currently offered? The idea is to design minimal curricula which target the user-chosen professional objective, justifying them solely in terms of that specific objective. Users are then free to select any optional courses desired, including history and literature if that trips their triggers. I ask only that we set up such a system and let it freely compete with the "traditional" bullshit-laden system; the free market will provide conclusive evidence of what is best. Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) (12/22/89)
From perry@apollo.HP.COM (Jim Perry): > You want the big professional bucks ASAP, > you'll have to take humanities courses and you may as well try to get > something out of them. As a MSCS candidate, with a 4.0 GPA and industrial experience besides, I have no intention of doing so... Read my lips: No New Humanities!!! > [Naturally, every individual is different, and I know many gifted > programmers/engineers who never made it through college at all but > that I'd love to have working for/with me. I don't know that I'd > interview them based solely on a resume, though...] But Jim!!! They might not have all the Literature and Humanities!!! How could they possibly be good workers without that??? :^) From mjl@cs.rit.edu (Michael Lutz): > I teach at one of the most stridently career > oriented institutions in the land. RIT unabashedly proclaims that its > primary mission is the preparation of graduates for careers in a > variety of professions from engineering and computer science to graphic > arts and photography. Yet the vast majority of my faculty colleagues > would recoil in horror at the thought of providing the kind of > "education" Bill Wolfe advocates. Congratulations, Michael: you've precisely identified the problem!!! If there were effective alternatives, career-oriented institutions which provided the type of education I advocate, then there would be no need for this discussion. The free market would demonstrate conclusively that the nonproductive topics are in fact not necessary to professional career preparation, and that the career preparation component of a BS is quite simply being held hostage so that students can be compelled to study whatever the educational establishment wishes. It has been claimed that such topics are necessary for one to be able to intelligently vote; if so, establish voting requirements. Right now, the criteria for voting involve physical age and nothing more, so this defense is not consistent with the present state of reality. In fact, when it comes right down to it, there is no justification whatsoever, except for the Machiavellian fact that the educational establishment is in a position to hold hostage the career preparations of its students. Unbundle the BS/BA and let the free market assign the true values of the career-preparation and irrelevant-topics components; then we shall see how the costs and benefits *really* stack up!! Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (12/22/89)
In article <7514@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: | From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): | | > This is no red herring, you are trying to | > avoid the issue that the students might lack the drive and determination | > to make a legal buck, opting instead for the fast, big money of drug | > trafficking due to greed, impatience, etc. | | The problem is that even if they do have the drive and determination, | there is enough irrelevant bullshit to go through to make them think | twice about the "legal" route. Oh, please. If they have the drive and determination no amount of perceived academic irrelevancy will deter them. Persons of such flimsy moral character (thinking that their _boredom_ justifies their anti-social behaviour) would probably leap at any provocation to pursue their true interest (money) without regards to societal norms. | As a consequence people become drug | dealers rather than going into the various professions they would | naturally have chosen in the absence of unnecessary barriers. Dang! I wanted to bee a doktor, but they sed I had to tak speling! I refyuz to put up wit dis irr, uh, urruluph, uh, stoopid bullshit anuthr minnit!!!!! I'm gunna bee a krak deelr and then wen Im filthee rich I will lern to apre, uh, uppree, uh, like art an shit. | >> People in the ghetto are good for being anything they want to be; | > | > Unless they want to become an historian, a writer, etc. | | That's fine, too; anyone who wants to do this should be free to | do it, using a program which sends them straight into their field | of choice. This differs sharply from the Bralick method, in which | everyone must study lots of BS which is irrelevant to their interests, | whatever those interests might be. It _is_ relevant to their interest for them to study history. It may not be _pleasurable_ (at least initially), but it is in their interest. Humanities may not be immediately gratifying, but they are not "irrelevant" to the student's interests. How is one supposed to be aware that certain "fields" even exist without having been exposed to them? | I advocate ensuring that students are able to search the literature | in their fields in order to solve practical problems, This mechanistic, unidimensional, hollow, overly-utilitarian view of human beings is perhaps the product of a disregard for the humanities. | and that a | system of continuing education be set up in order to provide lifelong | learning; Such already exists. It is called a library. Of course our 'prentices would not have the tools to use the library, unless they had 'prenticed to a librarian. The lifelong learning is something one does on one's own -- not for a certificate that makes one more competitive for that raise. | There are many means of becoming politically informed which do not | involve required nonproductive topics -- reading the newspapers is | one of the best means of preparing to vote upon the topics of the day. Yeah, why just _learn_ about history when we can _repeat_ it instead. Reading the newspapers. That's rich. Why would they want to do anything so inefficient? I am sure there are professional journals that they could read to move them a little faster on that fast track to financial success, neh? | > Please define the "fast track to financial success." | | A program which will provide comprehensive professional training | in the profession of the user's choice, which is minimal with | respect to time required and with respect to cost of training. At what age is an individual encouraged to choose his profession? I guess little Johnny can get a student loan to pay for first grade -- we can go back not only to guilds, but to indentured servitude, too. It would be inefficient of me to want to pay for a potential future competitor's training, now wouldn't it? I am still waiting for the specifics: 1) how fast? and 2) how successful? How can you expect to design an educational system without requirements? | ... | > What? Our mature, rational students -- people who can design their own | > curriculum -- cannot figure out the rationale for the courses that are | > currently offered? | | The idea is to design minimal curricula which target the user-chosen | professional objective, justifying them solely in terms of that specific | objective. Whoa, there. Who do you think you are to design somebody's personally chosen curriculum that will put them on the financial fast track? The next thing you might say is that the _user_ might not know what courses to take to prepare themselves for their future. The student that wants to be a "brane sergen" doesn't need bullstuff like "algbra" or "kemistree" -- the student knows what he needs: a drill, a sharp knife, and a stiff to practice on. The next thing we know you might try to sneak some irrelevant bullstuff like "ekinomix" in on the student -- since the student's future _might_ entail (and you'll find this hard to believe) something besides work. | I ask only that we set up such a system and let it freely compete | with the "traditional" bullshit-laden system; the free market will | provide conclusive evidence of what is best. Let me see if I can explain this one last time. It is not simply an economic question. This individual is not just being trained for a job. This individual will also be a voter and possibly a parent. This individual cannot predict the exact course of his future, and so would be ill-served by being turned into an over-specialized barbarian. This individual needs general tools from which he can specialize when necessary. Regards, -- Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | luxury than of arms, they lose bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu | their state. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli
billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) (12/23/89)
From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): > | >> People in the ghetto are good for being anything they want to be; > | > > | > Unless they want to become an historian, a writer, etc. > | > | That's fine, too; anyone who wants to do this should be free to > | do it, using a program which sends them straight into their field > | of choice. This differs sharply from the Bralick method, in which > | everyone must study lots of BS which is irrelevant to their interests, > | whatever those interests might be. > > It _is_ relevant to their interest for them to study history. It may > not be _pleasurable_ (at least initially), but it is in their interest. If that were true, then they would choose it voluntarily. > Humanities may not be immediately gratifying, but they are not > "irrelevant" to the student's interests. How is one supposed to > be aware that certain "fields" even exist without having been > exposed to them? Simple... expose them to the library instead. > The lifelong learning is something one does on one's own -- not for > a certificate that makes one more competitive for that raise. Hey, Will, there's a typo in the above sentence... the "not" needs to be removed... :-| -- I'm deadly serious > At what age is an individual encouraged to choose his profession? As soon as possible, since knowing your objective will keep you from having to take randomly selected courses while the objective is still being determined. > | I ask only that we set up such a system and let it freely compete > | with the "traditional" bullshit-laden system; the free market will > | provide conclusive evidence of what is best. > > Let me see if I can explain this one last time. It is not simply > an economic question. This individual is not just being trained for > a job. This individual will also be a voter and possibly a parent. Severely retarded persons are legally empowered to vote; if there are to be any voting requirements, they must be consistently imposed upon the entire voting population. Courses on parenting are a good example of how educators could offer courses which might well be taken VOLUNTARILY, and further efforts by educators along these lines are to be encouraged. > This individual cannot predict the exact course of his future, and > so would be ill-served by being turned into an over-specialized > barbarian. This individual needs general tools from which he can > specialize when necessary. I have absolutely no objection to leaving "generalization" programs as an OPTION. The reality is that employers want *specialists* -- they will even ask for ten years' experience in an area which has only existed for five!! Recent articles in misc.jobs.misc have detailed the great troubles which befall those who have naively followed the claims of educators regarding generalization as a virtue. Thus, the free market will slam graduates of generalist programs flat on their faces even more strongly as the specialized competition intensifies. It's sad that some students are naive enough to listen to such advice from people who largely possess no non-academic professional experience whatsoever, but they do wind up eventually paying the price and learning their lesson. Retraining is essential; no program, regardless of how general, is going to enable one to be competitive in all possible professions at once. If I decide I'm tired of being a computer professional and would like to become a genetic engineer, retraining is completely appropriate and absolutely necessary. Its cost and duration can be minimized by not taking irrelevant, non-productive topics. Bill "Power to the Consumer" Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) (12/23/89)
From me, responding to Will: > Courses on parenting are a good example of how educators could > offer courses which might well be taken VOLUNTARILY, and further > efforts by educators along these lines are to be encouraged. In fact, Will, I'll gladly agree that courses on parenting (or the demonstration of equivalent knowledge by examination) should be required of parents; however, any such requirement must be universally applicable to the entire population of parents, probably as a precondition for ever gaining parental custody. Attaching such a requirement to the population of college graduates instead, or some other such unrelated population, is not appropriate. Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) (12/27/89)
Bill Wolfe writes: > The reality is that employers want *specialists* -- they will even ask for > ten years' experience in an area which has only existed for five!! and > > Retraining is essential; no program, regardless of how general, is going to > enable one to be competitive in all possible professions at once. If I > decide I'm tired of being a computer professional and would like to become a > genetic engineer, retraining is completely appropriate and absolutely > necessary. Its cost and duration can be minimized by not taking irrelevant, > non-productive topics. How do you retrain someone who has learned one specialty to the exclusion of all other knowledge? If you have learned only the science necessary to be a COBOL programmer, how difficult will it be to learn biology? You personally can consider switching because of your relatively general education. Consider further that fields of specialization are changing rapidly. Some electronics engineers _are_ required to design bio-interfaces; how do they do that if they've never learned basic biology? Generalists evolve; specialists become extinct!
bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (12/29/89)
In article <7519@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: | From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): | > | > It _is_ relevant to their interest for them to study history. It may | > not be _pleasurable_ (at least initially), but it is in their interest. | | If that were true, then they would choose it voluntarily. If they don't know about it -- they won't choose it. Some people believe in the "rational economic man" as an oversimplified model of human decision-making. Such people think that _all_ people _always_ make informed, rational decisions. Children are least likely to know what is good for them in the long run. | > Humanities may not be immediately gratifying, but they are not | > "irrelevant" to the student's interests. How is one supposed to | > be aware that certain "fields" even exist without having been | > exposed to them? | | Simple... expose them to the library instead. Waste their time in a _library_?? Don't you mean a technical library where they can focus their every moment on their career (which they chose when they were six)? Or are you perhaps admitting that school should teach something _more_ than material strictly germane to their future careers? Be careful here or you will have to agree with that and we can then start discussing the "correct" mix of career and general education appropriate to their education. | > The lifelong learning is something one does on one's own -- not for | > a certificate that makes one more competitive for that raise. | | Hey, Will, there's a typo in the above sentence... the "not" | needs to be removed... :-| -- I'm deadly serious Serious and misguided. We will just have to agree to disagree. Speaking of money, I am still waiting for your measures of success on that financial fast-track: how much? how fast? and how many people agree with that assessment? If you could cite the study you're using it would probably help... | > At what age is an individual encouraged to choose his profession? | | As soon as possible, since knowing your objective will keep | you from having to take randomly selected courses while the | objective is still being determined. This is getting amusing. You might find it hard to imagine, but peoples' interests shift around while they are young. Some few children lock onto a particular field and/or speciality very early in life, but generally interests change. Your prescription is intellectual poison. | > | I ask only that we set up such a system and let it freely compete | > | with the "traditional" bullshit-laden system; the free market will | > | provide conclusive evidence of what is best. Well, Bill, in the free marketplace of ideas nobody's buying this one. You and I both advocate a change from the status quo. We will both need to convince the voting public that our ideas will result in a better product. You are trying to produce a better robot, uh, worker; I am trying to produce a literate citizen who can pursue a lifetime of learning. Notice how a non-technical skill: argumentation, becomes important in a citizen's later life. We will also be drawing on research performed in the social sciences and philosophy to answer important questions as we proceed in this argument. Your assertions that thus-and-such will be better, or that the market will prove which is better are merely assertions - unproven and unprovable except at the cost of some experimental group's education. | > Let me see if I can explain this one last time. It is not simply | > an economic question. This individual is not just being trained for | > a job. This individual will also be a voter and possibly a parent. | | Severely retarded persons are legally empowered to vote; if | there are to be any voting requirements, they must be consistently | imposed upon the entire voting population. I didn't say that a HS diploma is a _requirement_ for voting, did I? It (supposedly) doesn't have to be in a society which _requires_ K-12 education. | Courses on parenting are a good example of how educators could | offer courses which might well be taken VOLUNTARILY, and further | efforts by educators along these lines are to be encouraged. Agreed. | > This individual cannot predict the exact course of his future, and | > so would be ill-served by being turned into an over-specialized | > barbarian. This individual needs general tools from which he can | > specialize when necessary. | | I have absolutely no objection to leaving "generalization" programs | as an OPTION. The reality is that employers want *specialists* -- So they should train them. You are interested in subsidizing business, then. If a business can't make it on its own in the marketplace, why should the taxpayers subsidize them by taking over their training for them? So should the students be trained in the IBM (the _right_ way) way of developing software or some other methodology? In other words which company do you think should be given the subsidy? | they will even ask for ten years' experience in an area which has | only existed for five!! Recent articles in misc.jobs.misc A _great_ source of anecdotal information, which _can_ be pursuasive, but not this time (and certainly not from that source :-). | have | detailed the great troubles which befall those who have naively | followed the claims of educators regarding generalization as a | virtue. Duh. The virtue lies not only in being adaptable in the marketplace but in the entire breadth and scope of one's life. You will never (in this forum) admit to a person being a person rather than just (and solely) a worker. Fine. Your view of humankind must also be sold in the marketplace of ideas. Good luck. | Thus, the free market will slam graduates of generalist | programs flat on their faces even more strongly as the specialized | competition intensifies. Unsupported conjecture. | It's sad that some students are naive | enough to listen to such advice from people who largely possess | no non-academic professional experience whatsoever, but they do | wind up eventually paying the price and learning their lesson. And if they listened to your advice they wouldn't graduate from HS. So now you have taken your unsupported conjecture and drawn a nice conclusion from it. Sophistry. Regards, -- Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | luxury than of arms, they lose bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu | their state. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli
bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (12/29/89)
In article <7520@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: | From me, responding to Will: | > Courses on parenting are a good example of how educators could | > offer courses which might well be taken VOLUNTARILY, and further | > efforts by educators along these lines are to be encouraged. With which I agreed. | In fact, Will, I'll gladly agree that courses on parenting (or | the demonstration of equivalent knowledge by examination) should | be required of parents; however, any such requirement must be | universally applicable to the entire population of parents, | probably as a precondition for ever gaining parental custody. Kind of like a cattle breeder's certificate, eh? A real statist, aren't we? While it isn't a technical journal, perhaps you have read _Brave New World_ by Aldous Huxley. How you gonna keep then from breeding, Bill? Perhaps you just fired this one off without thinking it through (I hope so, anyway). It looks like it comes from a mechanistic, utilitarian, shallow view of man -- the product of narrow thinking. Regards, -- Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | luxury than of arms, they lose bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu | their state. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli
jcarson@moniz.bcm.tmc.edu (Janet L. Carson) (12/29/89)
You can get your highly specialized training if you want, Mr. Wolfe, but
the marketplace ain't gonna let you keep it! The world is a constantly
changing place. Specialized training might get you *on* the fast track,
but a general background which enables you to function effectively and
solve problems in a variety of areas, contexts, and situations will help
you *stay* there.
Janet L. Carson internet: jcarson@bcm.tmc.edu
Baylor College of Medicine uucp: {rutgers,mailrus}!bcm!jcarsonbillwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) (12/29/89)
From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): > IMHO it should be the _last_ priority of the secondary school to > train a student for a trade. The first priority should be to > teach the basic skills (reading, writing, mathematics, computer > skills, library skills, thinking skills, a foreign language, etc.) > necessary for the student to pursue a lifetime of learning > (i.e. the pursuit of their own interests), the second should > be to produce a literate, informed electorate, and once those > two missions are accomplished, the student can then be trained > in life skills (how to balance a check book, why one shouldn't > borrow for consumption, how to prepare meals, change diapers, etc.), > and then finally one (or several) trades. Well, clearly we have markedly different priorities. Life skills are top priority, followed by making money. The rest is optional, at the student's discretion. If the student chooses not to vote (a popular option), fine; if a decision is made not to learn any foreign languages, no problem -- many Americans will never have any practical opportunity to make use of foreign languages anyway. Of course, this would actually mean that people have the right to self-determination, as opposed to the need to be force-fed the idealized image of The Perfect Citizen held by certain educators, but this would mean that educators would actually have to justify the value of the optional materials they are presenting, and we couldn't have that, now, could we? Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) (12/29/89)
From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): > | > It _is_ relevant to their interest for them to study history. It may > | > not be _pleasurable_ (at least initially), but it is in their interest. > | > | If that were true, then they would choose it voluntarily. > > If they don't know about it -- they won't choose it. Some people > believe in the "rational economic man" as an oversimplified model > of human decision-making. Such people think that _all_ people > _always_ make informed, rational decisions. Otherwise, they promptly learn the value of doing so. > Children are least > likely to know what is good for them in the long run. And so they have parents and academic advisors, who can advise the student as necessary. % | > Humanities may not be immediately gratifying, but they are not % | > "irrelevant" to the student's interests. How is one supposed to % | > be aware that certain "fields" even exist without having been % | > exposed to them? % | % | Simple... expose them to the library instead. % % Waste their time in a _library_?? Don't you mean a technical library % where they can focus their every moment on their career (which they % chose when they were six)? Or are you perhaps admitting that school % should teach something _more_ than material strictly germane to their % future careers? The ability to use a library is a basic skill which facilitates the solving of practical problems which arise naturally in life. For example, libraries provide information regarding the dealer prices of new automobiles, which is quite useful for negotiating purposes. Of course, they can also use the library for leisurely pursuits if they so desire, including the reading of history or literature. > Serious and misguided. We will just have to agree to disagree. > Speaking of money, I am still waiting for your measures of success > on that financial fast-track: how much? Each individual must maximize according to his/her own measure of success; psychic rewards are among the benefits which must be factored into the measurement of success. > how fast? As soon as possible. If we eliminate unnecessary topics, I think we could have people in a position of economic self-sufficiency by the age of 18; this would be considered reasonably fast. > | > At what age is an individual encouraged to choose his profession? > | > | As soon as possible, since knowing your objective will keep > | you from having to take randomly selected courses while the > | objective is still being determined. > > This is getting amusing. You might find it hard to imagine, but > peoples' interests shift around while they are young. Some few > children lock onto a particular field and/or speciality very early > in life, but generally interests change. Your prescription is > intellectual poison. Not at all; I fully expect that people will make several false starts before settling on their final objective. However, they will have studied topics OF INTEREST TO THEM in the process of determining their ultimate career objective. > You are interested in subsidizing business, then. No, I'm interested in enabling individuals to efficiently pursue economic power. As per Maslow's hierarchy, they will move to satisfy their more pressing needs (food on the table, etc.) first. Once a person's economic interests have been satisfied, then there is ample opportunity for the educational system to use advertising and other methods to reach consumers who have cash in their pockets (thanks to the success of the professional training) and cultural thoughts on their minds. Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) (12/29/89)
From a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow): > How do you retrain someone who has learned one specialty to the exclusion of > all other knowledge? If you have learned only the science necessary to be a > COBOL programmer, how difficult will it be to learn biology? Well, considering Dijkstra's comment regarding the teaching of COBOL as "mental mutilation"... :-)/2 Seriously, though, by taking the biology up front you have paid a cost in the present rather than paying it IF NECESSARY in the future. The chances are that the cost will really never have to be paid at all, which would make the decision to take the present cost a total waste. Even assuming 100% certainty that the cost would have to be paid at some point, we can take the financial resources that would have gone into paying the present cost, invest them, and have far more money in the future -- probably enough to pay for not only the one biology course, but an entire genetic engineering program. We must also consider the fact that the passage of time will cause the knowledge acquired earlier to be less clearly recalled than the knowledge acquired more recently. Finally, if the student is not interested in biology at present, but will be highly interested in biology in the future, then it pays to give the biology in the future because the retention will be positively correlated with the student's interest in the topic. Thus, on all measures, it is far more practical to delay or avoid the costs involved. > Consider further that fields of specialization are changing rapidly. > Some electronics engineers _are_ required to design bio-interfaces; > how do they do that if they've never learned basic biology? Well, in that case I'd say that their job requires a bio-interface specialization, and that will require whatever is necessary to obtain that particular certification. > Generalists evolve; specialists become extinct! Humans have a general capability to retrain; this permits them to promptly re-specialize and thereby avoid economic extinction. Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
nam2254@dsacg2.UUCP (Tom Ohmer) (12/29/89)
From article <848@mindlink.UUCP>, by a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow): > > all other knowledge? If you have learned only the science necessary to be a > COBOL programmer, how difficult will it be to learn biology? You personally It's probably only a problem with this particular example, but I (BSCIS) don't think you can learn just the science necessary to be a COBOL programmer and be successful in a career in DP. Other sciences need to be learned, too. My education at DeVry was VERY CIS oriented, and still included things like accounting, business, economics, math, Systems Analysis, etc. I use bits and pieces of what I learned in those subjects (and others) everyday, and I feel that that helps make me be the best that I can be (oh, oh, been employed by the fed. gov't too long :-). I tried to get back to the beginning of this thread, and can't. What is important is to try to find ways to make education as good as it can be, not trim it to the absolute minimum necessary (according to 'someone') so it will fit neatly into 'someone's' Big Mac-sized plastic box (career path plans). -- Tom Ohmer @ Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, DSAC-AMB, Bldg. 27-6, P.O. Box 1605, Columbus, OH 43216-5002 UUCP: osu-cis!dsac!tohmer INTERNET: tohmer@dsac.dla.mil Phone: (614) 238-9210 AUTOVON: 850-9210 Disclaimer claimed
sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) (12/30/89)
From article <848@mindlink.UUCP>, by a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow): > > How do you retrain someone who has learned one specialty to the exclusion of > all other knowledge? If you have learned only the science necessary to be a > COBOL programmer, how difficult will it be to learn biology? You personally > can consider switching because of your relatively general education. I don't think anybody is asking that we super-specialize students. I think the arguments are for have schools produce, for example, software engineers in addition to computer scientists. Not COBOL or Unix/C programmers in addition to computer programmers. Not that one shouldn't learn Unix/C while in school, though it should be a means and not an end. Actually, I could consider switching to biology not because of my generalized college education but because of my high school education. That's where I feel most generalization should be focused. -- Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur.uucp!aqdata!sullivan aQdata, Inc. San Dimas, CA
bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (12/30/89)
In article <7532@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: | From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): | > Children are least | > likely to know what is good for them in the long run. | | And so they have parents and academic advisors, who can | advise the student as necessary. They won't have parents if your statist plan for testing people for parenting skills (which I presume you will define) removes children from their homes. | The ability to use a library is a basic skill which facilitates the ~~~~~~~~~~~ Not for all career choices, e.g. manual laborers rarely need to use the library to enhance their earning potential _in their chosen profession_. | solving of practical problems which arise naturally in life. For ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | example, libraries provide information regarding the dealer prices | of new automobiles, which is quite useful for negotiating purposes. So the educational system is _not_ only supposed to teach the students only directly job related material but also things that the students might find useful in their lives as consumers and citizens (consumers of governement services, neh?). So now the discussion becomes a matter of degree. You will argue to minimize those things which will help the student to be an informed elector, and maximize those things which (in your opinion) will make them a more efficient producer. I am glad to see that you have finally admitted that school is not just for vocational education. | Of course, they can also use the library for leisurely pursuits if | they so desire, including the reading of history or literature. You don't seriously mean to imply that there is more to a person than work, do you? | > Speaking of money, I am still waiting for your measures of success | > on that financial fast-track: how much? | | Each individual must maximize according to his/her own measure of | success; psychic rewards are among the benefits which must be factored | into the measurement of success. Which doesn't answer the question. How did _psychic_ rewards get onto the _financial_ fast-track? I assume that you can't answer this question; that you want to design an educational system to achieve an unspecifiable objective. Sounds like a prescription for disaster. | > how fast? | | As soon as possible. If we eliminate unnecessary topics, I think we | could have people in a position of economic self-sufficiency by the | age of 18; this would be considered reasonably fast. Considered reasonably fast by whom? You? Define "economic self- sufficiency" and show that it is _not_ achievable under the current system by a motivated person. You seem to have shifted from the "fast-track" to "sufficiency." How will mere "self-sufficiency" keep people from selling drugs where they can earn the big money? | Not at all; I fully expect that people will make several false starts | before settling on their final objective. However, they will have | studied topics OF INTEREST TO THEM in the process of determining their | ultimate career objective. Baseball, television, etc. Remember, you have _no_ standards for a person's education -- just whatever happens to interest him. At age 6 how many children know that they want to be "brane serjens?" Are you advocating "shoving irrelevant material" down their very throats? A six-year-old who is going to be a professional ball player doesn't need irrelevant things like mathematics, computer science, literature, philosophy, spelling, etc. I can't imagine that you would advocate probably uncertified parents or even teachers to decide what children should learn in _any_ grade. Perhaps you would like to adjust your position to accomodate a planned curriculum in the lower grades. We can then argue about which grades constitute the lower grades. I say K-12. | > You are interested in subsidizing business, then. | | No, I'm interested in enabling individuals to efficiently pursue | economic power. As per Maslow's hierarchy, they will move to | satisfy their more pressing needs (food on the table, etc.) first. I disagree. You want to subsidize business. Business needs workers. If a business cannot find somebody who is already trained to their satisfaction, they will: a) Hire an untrained person and train them. b) Close their business. c) Form a consortium with other businesses to provide job related training to qualifying students. d) None of the above. I choose a) unless the problem is so serious that c) becomes necessary. Business should take the responsibility for their own training programs and not come begging to the taxpayer to bail them out of their problems. The citizens of this country don't have a direct interest in these businesses having a sufficient stock of trained workers. They _do_ have a direct interest in an informed electorate, though. Hmmm. Regards, -- Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | luxury than of arms, they lose bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu | their state. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli
arny@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (arny.b.engelson) (12/30/89)
In article <7531@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: >From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): >> IMHO it should be the _last_ priority of the secondary school to >> train a student for a trade. The first priority should be to >> teach the basic skills (reading, writing, mathematics, computer >> skills, library skills, thinking skills, a foreign language, etc.) >> necessary for the student to pursue a lifetime of learning >> (i.e. the pursuit of their own interests), the second should >> be to produce a literate, informed electorate, and once those >> two missions are accomplished, the student can then be trained >> in life skills (how to balance a check book, why one shouldn't >> borrow for consumption, how to prepare meals, change diapers, etc.), >> and then finally one (or several) trades. > > Well, clearly we have markedly different priorities. Life skills > are top priority, followed by making money. The rest is optional, > at the student's discretion. If the student chooses not to vote > (a popular option), fine; if a decision is made not to learn any > foreign languages, no problem -- many Americans will never have > any practical opportunity to make use of foreign languages anyway. > > Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu First of all, Bill, your posting clearly indicates that you forgot that this newsgroup (and your article) have a worldwide distribution, including many countries where English is not the primary language. If everyone held your dim view of learning foreign languages, they wouldn't be able to read this. Many Americans like to travel, even to countries where English isn't the primary language. Knowing a foreign language increases the ability to communicate with others on these trips, and makes the trip more enjoyable. On a recent trip to Europe, my wife and I used (to various degrees) 5 different languages. US companies that do business overseas (more and more each day) must have people who speak the language. This trend is increasing, creating a demand for technical people with foreign language ability to work with overseas business partners. George Bush's ability to speak fluent Spanish certainly didn't hurt when he addressed members of the large hispanic community in the US. And I doubt he learned Spanish AFTER deciding to go into politics. Learning a foreign language, and learning the basics in different areas of science and humanities, makes you better able to succeed in the world. The world doesn't stop at the US border, you know. I agree with Will that trade skills is a low priority for schools. Teaching someone a trade will not help them succeed in life; teaching them to think, will. If they can think, and know how to make use of the resources around them, they can make an informed decision and learn any number of skills. Most people want to learn a little about different areas before deciding what to do with their life. You have to TAKE a class to really know if you like that subject, and may want to spend your life pursuing it. Many times, it helps to know a little about everything. Some examples: a little chemistry for dealing with drugs and a variety of household cleaners; a little carpentry for fixing things around the house; a little accounting for filling out your taxes; a little business knowledge for investing your money; a little psychology for raising your children and generally dealing with others; a little math for just about everything; some literary skills for writing (even if its only technical writing); history to learn from other's mistakes (and successes); etc. There are many whiz bang techies whose careers are limited because they write terribly, have no business sense, and can't hold a conversation on any topic outside of computers. The idea is to give people the best opportunity possible, not just to see that they can get some kind of job. Being an expert in one area doesn't guarantee you success. The field may become obsolete, and you with it. Remember to Engineers after the Apollo program ended? (You probably covered it in one of those useless classes called History). Or how about the steel workers? I'm sure there are other examples. I won't even address the not voting statement, except to say that this is one of the great problems facing our nation. General apathy and lack of knowledge about what's going on around the country and the world is causing this country terrible harm. You have to care what goes on outside of your little world, or else it will someday come crashing in around you. Being a specialist for your profession does not mean you should be a specialist in your entire life. With your plan Bill, how many Shakespeares, Beethovens, and Michelangelo's will we lose because they never thought to take an art, music or literature class, and instead spend all their time learning plumbing in high school so they can make a living. (Note: nothing against plumbing here, its just that people should learn about many things so they can decide what it is they want to do.) Just like the child who decides s/he hates a vegetable without ever having tried it, and then once being forced to eat it, decides it's not so bad. Granted, if s/he still hates it, then one taste is enough, as is one class in a particular subject. Sorry this turned out so long. -- Arny Engelson att!wayback!arny
billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) (12/30/89)
From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): > So now the discussion becomes a matter of degree. You will argue to > minimize those things which will help the student to be an informed > elector, and maximize those things which (in your opinion) will > make them a more efficient producer. No, I argue to MAKE OPTIONAL those things which are not strictly essential. I have proposed the outright elimination of absolutely nothing except certain unnecessary requirements. Nothing prevents people from taking exactly the same material under the new system as they would have taken under the old system; the difference is considerably greater freedom of choice. > | > how fast? > | As soon as possible. If we eliminate unnecessary topics, I think we > | could have people in a position of economic self-sufficiency by the > | age of 18; this would be considered reasonably fast. > > Considered reasonably fast by whom? You? Define "economic self- > sufficiency" and show that it is _not_ achievable under the current > system by a motivated person. The ability to work in the profession of one's choice at a rate of pay equal to that which is currently obtained by entry-level workers in said profession; currently there are large quantities of irrelevant material which prevent achieving this within a reasonable period of time. > How will mere "self-sufficiency" > keep people from selling drugs where they can earn the big money? The psychic rewards will shift from negative to positive, and achieving the shift will be viewed as feasible. > | Not at all; I fully expect that people will make several false starts > | before settling on their final objective. However, they will have > | studied topics OF INTEREST TO THEM in the process of determining their > | ultimate career objective. > > Baseball, television, etc. Remember, you have _no_ standards for a > person's education -- just whatever happens to interest him. At age 6 > how many children know that they want to be "brane serjens?" Are you > advocating "shoving irrelevant material" down their very throats? > A six-year-old who is going to be a professional ball player doesn't > need irrelevant things like mathematics, computer science, literature, > philosophy, spelling, etc. Certainly the literature and the philosophy will be inessential; however, mathematics will assist in the understanding of batting averages; spelling is a "life skill"; a bit of physics would be useful in understanding the processes of pitching, batting, and catching; marketing would be useful in understanding how to ensure that the seats in the stadium are filled with as many rear ends as possible; and so on. There is ample room for relevant material. I think you are being overly pessimistic in claiming that students will immediately attempt to flood the market for baseball players; not everyone wants to do that. While a six-year-old may not know that s/he wants to become a brain surgeon, s/he may well show a great interest in biology. As s/he traverses the tree (or digraph) of knowledge, marginal decisions will be made as to which area(s) look more interesting; ultimately, the pattern will converge upon some region(s) of professional certification. In this way, students will pursue professional self-determination. > | No, I'm interested in enabling individuals to efficiently pursue > | economic power. As per Maslow's hierarchy, they will move to > | satisfy their more pressing needs (food on the table, etc.) first. > > The citizens of this country don't have a direct interest in these > businesses having a sufficient stock of trained workers. They > _do_ have a direct interest in an informed electorate, though. Hmmm. We'll have to disagree on this one. If a person with the intellectual capacity of a Ronald Reagan can run the country, then the system is clearly capable of pretty much running itself. What is *really* needed is greater economic strength. In some places (Kuwait, Alaska, etc.) there is a negative flow of money from the government to the citizen; the government actually pays each citizen a certain amount of money each year. This is possible because of great economic success in those regions. In the future, the economy will be automated to such an extent that it will be possible for us to be professional consumers of the many goods and services which are automatically produced. People will be free to do research all their lives if they so desire, to study Shakespeare all their lives, whatever they wish. This situation will arise much more quickly if a greater effort is made by educators to accelerate the process of economic development; the present system is serving to hold it back relative to what could very easily be achieved instead. Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (12/31/89)
In article <7539@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: | From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): | > So now the discussion becomes a matter of degree. You will argue to | > minimize those things which will help the student to be an informed | > elector, and maximize those things which (in your opinion) will | > make them a more efficient producer. | | No, I argue to MAKE OPTIONAL those things which are not strictly | essential. No, you argue to make _everything_ optional; you imply here that there is some body of knowledge which is "strictly essential." Is this a _required_ curriculum, or a menu of courses from which a student can choose? | I have proposed the outright elimination of absolutely | nothing except certain unnecessary requirements. You have proposed the elimination of _all_ requirements. Isn't that what allowing the student to "pursue his own interests" means? Do you mean you are going to "shove the `necessary requirements' down the students' throats?" You imply the existence of "necessary requirements." Who has decided that they are "necessary?" Saying that the student decides for himself would indicate a clear misunderstanding of what a "requirement" is, so maybe you want to change "requirements" to "recommendations." | > Considered reasonably fast by whom? You? Define "economic self- | > sufficiency" and show that it is _not_ achievable under the current | > system by a motivated person. | | The ability to work in the profession of one's choice at a rate | of pay equal to that which is currently obtained by entry-level | workers in said profession; So "economic self-sufficiency" was a misnomer. Why should an overspecialized individual get paid the current wage which currently goes to a somebody with a broader educational background? Your specialist cannot bring a broad range of skills to his job that a generalist can, thus deserves less money. | > How will mere "self-sufficiency" | > keep people from selling drugs where they can earn the big money? | | The psychic rewards will shift from negative to positive, and | achieving the shift will be viewed as feasible. I am absolutely fascinated to learn how "psychic rewards" got onto the "financial fast track to economic success." Now we not only have vaporous "requirements" being fulfilled, but also some kind of mystical psychic benefits preventing anti-social behaviour. The longer you argue for your position the more damage you do to it. | ... | In some places (Kuwait, Alaska, etc.) there is a negative flow of money | from the government to the citizen; Hmmm... "a negative flow of money from the government to the citizen" Isn't that what we usually call taxes? Gee, I thought that there was a _positive_ flow of money _from_ the government of Alaska _to_ the citizens of Alaska. You might be right about Kuwait, though. | the government actually pays each | citizen a certain amount of money each year. Oops. Looks like we got our negatives and positives backwards... | This is possible because | of great economic success in those regions. Gee, it isn't because of the extractive nature of their "economic success" is it? | In the future, the economy | will be automated to such an extent that it will be possible for us to | be professional consumers of the many goods and services which are | automatically produced. This is an interesting prediction. How far in the future? Which goods will be automatically produced? What subjects should a professional consumer take in high school to prepare him to enter the job market for professional consumers in a "reasonable amount of time" at the current entry-level wage for professional consumers? Is "professional consumer" a euphemism for "welfare recipient?" The most frightening thing isn't that you trot out this effluvia to support your position, but that you apparently don't understand that it doesn't support your argument because it is fantasy. Until and unless you can provide a reasonable argument for changing the current educational system to you vocational-technical educational system, I will consider this debate terminated (much to the glee of the other readers of this group, I'm sure). Regards, -- Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | luxury than of arms, they lose bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu | their state. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli
billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) (01/07/90)
From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): > | I have proposed the outright elimination of absolutely > | nothing except certain unnecessary requirements. > > You have proposed the elimination of _all_ requirements. Isn't > that what allowing the student to "pursue his own interests" > means? No, I have proposed the elimination of requirements which are not strictly essential for the certification of a worker in a particular occupational specialty. The eliminated material should be available optionally if requested. > So "economic self-sufficiency" was a misnomer. Why should an > overspecialized individual get paid the current wage which > currently goes to a somebody with a broader educational > background? Your specialist cannot bring a broad range of > skills to his job that a generalist can, thus deserves less money. Equalize the salary by increasing the level of specialization. By raising the standard of specialization while holding the salary constant, there will be a free increase in worker quality. > I am absolutely fascinated to learn how "psychic rewards" got onto > the "financial fast track to economic success." "Financial" should have read "Economic". Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
fhadsell@csm9a.UUCP ( GP) (01/08/90)
In article <7587@hubcap.clemson.edu>, billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) writes: > From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): > > | I have proposed the outright elimination of absolutely > > | nothing except certain unnecessary requirements. > > > > You have proposed the elimination of _all_ requirements. Isn't > > that what allowing the student to "pursue his own interests" > > means? > > No, I have proposed the elimination of requirements which are > not strictly essential for the certification of a worker in a > . . . . . . . . . After a study of comp.edu it occurred to me that I didn't know where the people who need to know the pitfalls of higher education got the information they needed. In the above comp.edu debate academicians at all levels argue about the relative merits of specialization and generalization. A generally applicable conclusion does not seem to be in the making and hence incoming students, and their family, are charged with making critical decisions using inadequate and highly prejudiced information coming from us, the professionals. There is probably a useful analogy to specialized education/generalized education in the stock market. I site the comparison being individual stocks/mutual funds. If I know a lot about a particular stock, so that I have a special edge in the buying and selling of that stock, then the best decision for me is to get involved with that stock. If there are no such special stocks available to me then a mutual fund is probably appropriate. Usually the individual stock route is somewhat more risky, but offers the possibility of higher return. Our high school seniors and university freshman must make similar decisions, but it is their careers as well as their money that is at risk. What help is offered? What are these potential customers told? Who tells them? Are there expert systems available to these potential customers? If so, who certifies such expert systems? -- INTERNET:: fhadsell@csm9a.colorado.edu BITNET:: fhadsell@mines Frank Hadsell, Prof. of Geophysics, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado 80401 (303) 273-3456