tracy (11/05/82)
So far I have heard that Drexel is going to "require" freshmen to buy personal
computers when they enter school. The discussion concerning the validity of
this has missed an important point: The university I occasionally attend
(Waterloo) does not "require" me to buy books, calculator, clothing, or
anything else. I go to university simply to learn. If I could perform
complex math in my head or quickly on paper who would care that I didn't have
a calculator?
Things like these are all tools which aid the fundamental purpose of education:
learning! It seems reasonable that the university point out that a
student will get certain benefits from owning a personal computer, and then
offer a deal so that students may cheaply aquire them. But why should they
"require" a student to get one? I should think that if they would like to
make people more computer literate they would design tests and exams which
could only be passed by computer literate poeple. The University of Waterloo
does not make sure all students write english well by requiring them to take
remedial english courses; instead the students are required to write an exam
demonstrating english skills. Who cares how the student got the skills?
It is learning that is important, not the specific school, methodology or
personal computer used.
I suppose I had better be careful not to let this turn into a diatribe
against the "require" mentality which I find extremely repulsive. Humans
should not be cast in molds.
In response to the debate concerning the "right" of people to an education:
The term "right" is frequently ill-used and has so many connotaions
as to render it useless for communication. Here is my analysis:
A responsible society is one that considers the future welfare of every human
being in it. (Yes, this is my definition, or at least part of it.) It
follows that the education of the individual human should be a concern of a
responsible society as an educated populace will make better decisions on the
whole (about the future of the race and the individual) than an ignorant one.
There are of course many other benefits: wider range of skills, more
adaptability, possibly more tolerance, etc. Thus it would seem prudent
that we give as much education as possible to as many people as possible.
Preferably all to everyone.
So, I have advanced an argument for unrestricted education without mentioning
the confusing concept "right". I think that a "right" is a questionable
legal idea which has little bearing on the way humans should act towards
one another.
Not just another idealist,
Tracy Tims (...decvax!utzoo!hcr!tracy) Toronto, Ont.