- This topic has 5 voices and 17 replies.
-
Posts
-
This is an excellent three-part series of essays written by a college professor deploring the lack of literacy among today's college students. Part One, Part Two, Part Three. It is an excellent essay that graphically demonstrates how much our children will be than our grandparent were. He makes the eloquent argument that literacy is a large part of what made western society great and that it is a disgrace that modern education is not just letting literacy be lost but actually seems to be actively working for it to happen. I think the most telling passage of the entire series is this:
The disaster lies beyond the control of any individual (although one nevertheless does what he can) and it accelerates asymptotically. Perhaps the only thing we can do is laugh, laugh at the irony of a society that was once the most literate that ever existed now reverting to the spiritual savagery of tribal existence. The fateful joke is that the technical gewgaws that fascinate children and prevent them from maturing intellectually?from becoming readers, for example?could only have been invented in a science-saturated, massively literate society.
He is correct in both the facts of his assertion and in the irony of it all.What particularly upsets me is I can see the signs of what he is talking about in my son and his friends as well as the young soldiers who I deal with. They are almost militantly anti-intellectual, as if somehow being intelligent and articulate should be a badge of shame instead of something to be proud of. We live in sad times indeed.
I mark it down to: 2 mch txtng 😉
;DScout, that's an interesting piece by that professor. I wonder, though, how his recent class compares to those previously under his guidance. There are certainly "bad" students in every class, including the kind that he mentions that don't come to class except on the last day, and those who turn in papers in 30 mins when they should have spent at least 90 mins on it (NB: it always amazed me when other students could turn in written exams so early. I was normally one who would take up the entire time trying to finish such exams). Anyway, this part made me laugh:
A related example is the phrase ?the Labronze age,? which one student repeatedly substituted for the actual phrase, ?the Bronze Age,? in an essay. This at first baffled me. Then my wife suggested that it referred to a currently famous basketball player, the currency of whose name overwhelmed the student?s visual impression of the historical term in its correct form.
As I read the article, I thought that I would really enjoy taking such a class under such a professor now. I read the classics as an undergraduate, and I did get into them; my university prided itself on teaching such classics and the students prided themselves on reading them. But I feel like I would learn much more now if I were to study them now. In a sense it seems like college is designed for people who are at a point in life when getting an education is the last priority. Later on in life, when their social opportunities dwindle and their ability to grasp essential concepts increases, seems like a much better time for people to go to college. Alas, that is not how the world works.
In the first essay he makes the observation that while college writing has always been bad his empirical view is that it has been getting worse the longer he teaches. It seems that students dont even grasp concepts that students twenty years ago struggled with but eventually got. I got the main point of the piece being that students today are not even prepared for college, they do not even grasp elementary concepts. I thought his example of the difference between B.C. and A.D. dating conventions to be spot on. I know people like that.
I read something recently where the next generation will be measured in how quickly they can learn something, master it, then unlearn it and proceed to the next topic. The argument for this was focused primarily on technology — that technology changes so quickly that those who will excel and be successful will be those who can pick up and master new concepts quickly, and then just as quickly abandon them to take on the next “latest thing”. While I can see applicability in certain technological fields, I can't see this being a universal indicator of success.I also remember reading an article recently about the economic "recovery" that referenced the "April Jobs Report". The point that struck me was that roughly 29% of Americans age 22 and over have a college degree. Of course, the article went on to point out that unemployment for college graduates was much, much less than for those without a college degree, and also highlighted that the more formal education you have, the more you get paid (duh?!).Here's some food for thought though. My son is getting ready to enter his last year of high school. A year and a half ago, after being very frustrated with his high school experience (and we live in one of the top school districts in the state), we started looking in to private schools. He elected to enroll in a military style prep school that 1) doesn't allow iPods, cell phones, CD players, video games, or unfetter Internet access, - or girls, for that matter, and 2) teaches by total immersion -- that is, for five hours a day, for seven weeks, they study one subject. That would be Biology for seven weeks, take the exam. Then Algebra II / Trig for seven weeks, take the exam. U.S. History for seven weeks, take the exam. Retention for these kids is phenominal, and test scores are significantly better than the public schools. Class sizes are small (approximately 10 students per instructor) and study time is monitored. Some argue that students in this program lose time management skills, but that's where the military side of the school steps in -- room and personnel inspections, close order drill, parades, marching to chow, etc. Of course, there is chapel too. Guidance counselors begin with "when you go to college..." instead of the standard public school line "what are you thinking about after graduation?"So, here's a point for discussion... would the single subject total immersion program work in public secondary schools?Students wouldn't have to lug around 50 pounds of text books every day. Student teacher ratios would greatly improve -- although there would probably still be 25 - 30 kids per class, that would be all the teacher deals with for seven weeks -- as opposed to the 75 to 100 students that they deal with every day or every other day (if using block scheduling).Whadda ya tink?
I read something recently where the next generation will be measured in how quickly they can learn something, master it, then unlearn it and proceed to the next topic. The argument for this was focused primarily on technology -- that technology changes so quickly that those who will excel and be successful will be those who can pick up and master new concepts quickly, and then just as quickly abandon them to take on the next "latest thing". While I can see applicability in certain technological fields, I can't see this being a universal indicator of success.
That's pretty interesting. We do often talk about how "unlearned" generations are becoming despite all this money spent on education, but I bet that at the same time students today are better at picking up new technical concepts than compared to students of the past. The problem is that such skills do not necessarily lead to success in other areas of life that are needed for a properly-functioning society.
So, here's a point for discussion... would the single subject total immersion program work in public secondary schools?Students wouldn't have to lug around 50 pounds of text books every day. Student teacher ratios would greatly improve -- although there would probably still be 25 - 30 kids per class, that would be all the teacher deals with for seven weeks -- as opposed to the 75 to 100 students that they deal with every day or every other day (if using block scheduling).Whadda ya tink?
Interesting question....in a world of short attention spans, I don't really think it would work in public schools. You'd get unmotivated students who would turn into cocoons for weeks on end if they didn't like or didn't catch on to the subject matter being taught at that time. Discounting those students, I think it would have its advantages. Concepts could be investigated with more detail and time could theoretically be used more efficiently. I now take classes that meet 3 to 3.5 hours at a time, and for me classes of an hour or less would be too short. Although focusing on a single topic for long periods of time may seem daunting, it's really not bad at all so long as a) the topic is interesting and b) the in-class activities are at least somewhat varied so monotony doesn't take control.
So, here's a point for discussion… would the single subject total immersion program work in public secondary schools?Students wouldn't have to lug around 50 pounds of text books every day. Student teacher ratios would greatly improve -- although there would probably still be 25 - 30 kids per class, that would be all the teacher deals with for seven weeks -- as opposed to the 75 to 100 students that they deal with every day or every other day (if using block scheduling).Whadda ya tink?
That assumes that public school adminstrators actually want our children to learn versus do well on standardized tests. I know that the school my son went to in Texas spent the last 1/4 of the school year preparing for the mandatory testing.I bet it would work, but only if the whole program were implemented. Cant you hear the houls from parents now if they implemented something like this in public schools.I honestly dont think the average parent cares about their child's success.One intersting observation. In Texas, my sons teacher told us that we were one of three parents that showed up on parent-teacher conference day. i tend to believe her because the halls were totally empty when we went and we did not see another parent in the hour we were at the school the last time we had a conference. It was during the work day but both my wife and i took the time off to be there. Because we care about our son and his education.The contrast is that here in Germany (my son goes to German schools not American), almost all parents show up and there is a line to see the teachers. I was amazed at the level of parental involvement in Germany after spending three years back in the states.I dont just blame schools for stupid kids. Schools are part of it but I think the biggest part is parents who dont parent. If parents actually got involved with their kids instead of being too busy with their own lives kids would do better in school. Modern educational methods have something to do with it too.
Insert QuoteI read something recently where the next generation will be measured in how quickly they can learn something, master it, then unlearn it and proceed to the next topic. The argument for this was focused primarily on technology -- that technology changes so quickly that those who will excel and be successful will be those who can pick up and master new concepts quickly, and then just as quickly abandon them to take on the next "latest thing". While I can see applicability in certain technological fields, I can't see this being a universal indicator of success.I also remember reading an article recently about the economic "recovery" that referenced the "April Jobs Report". The point that struck me was that roughly 29% of Americans age 22 and over have a college degree. Of course, the article went on to point out that unemployment for college graduates was much, much less than for those without a college degree, and also highlighted that the more formal education you have, the more you get paid (duh?!).Here's some food for thought though. My son is getting ready to enter his last year of high school. A year and a half ago, after being very frustrated with his high school experience (and we live in one of the top school districts in the state), we started looking in to private schools. He elected to enroll in a military style prep school that 1) doesn't allow iPods, cell phones, CD players, video games, or unfetter Internet access, - or girls, for that matter, and 2) teaches by total immersion -- that is, for five hours a day, for seven weeks, they study one subject. That would be Biology for seven weeks, take the exam. Then Algebra II / Trig for seven weeks, take the exam. U.S. History for seven weeks, take the exam. Retention for these kids is phenominal, and test scores are significantly better than the public schools. Class sizes are small (approximately 10 students per instructor) and study time is monitored. Some argue that students in this program lose time management skills, but that's where the military side of the school steps in -- room and personnel inspections, close order drill, parades, marching to chow, etc. Of course, there is chapel too. Guidance counselors begin with "when you go to college..." instead of the standard public school line "what are you thinking about after graduation?"...I am horrified at this post. Vulture 6 wrote it some time ago and it reminds me of some description of Hitler Youth schools, or perhaps a Jesuit prep school. He allows no time for intellectual exploration, for introspection, for lying under a tree with your head in a girl's lap thinking about what to do with your life,or the sheer joy of freedom both intellectual and physical. Perhaps some students need the harsh corset of the drill instructor--I did--but not all of us are needful. As a citizen of this wonderful country I believe it is important to obey the rules except when they should be broken. George Washington would agree with me. You only get one shot at being a boy. I wonder if Vulture 6 used it?
I would suggest that things have changed. Cost, entrance requirements and student desires are allfactors that enter into the equation. The cost is so high that Junior Colleges are swamped with applicationsand the student can opt to live at home--ugh!Parents are paymasters, co-signers and advisors in many cases. None of my nephews or neices had their colleges picked by their parents--very 20th Century.
On of the failures of education (IMHO) is not spending more time getting the right fit for kids. Far too often students are encouraged to go to schools that are too much too soon… don't get me wrong I'm for any kid that can going on beyond HS, but with a caveat. Don't take a kids that could use a couple of years at a community college, to polish their skills, and send them directly to a four year school; don't take a kid that would do well at the local 4 yr, and send them off into the state university (read the likes of USC, etc.) system; don't take the State U prospect and send to Harvard / Yale / Princeton… get the kid on the first step and having success before pushing higher.Too many times I saw kids set up for failure by this process... happens not just with affirmative action programs, but generally anytime we want to promote the progress. The failure is then pinned on education generally.On another line; why blame HS's for Johnny and Janey not being able to read or do math? They should have learned that stuff in the primary grades, eh?
On of the failures of education (IMHO) is not spending more time getting the right fit for kids. Far too often students are encouraged to go to schools that are too much too soon... don't get me wrong I'm for any kid that can going on beyond HS, but with a caveat. Don't take a kids that could use a couple of years at a community college, to polish their skills, and send them directly to a four year school; don't take a kid that would do well at the local 4 yr, and send them off into the state university (read the likes of USC, etc.) system; don't take the State U prospect and send to Harvard / Yale / Princeton... get the kid on the first step and having success before pushing higher.Too many times I saw kids set up for failure by this process... happens not just with affirmative action programs, but generally anytime we want to promote the progress. The failure is then pinned on education generallyOn another line; why blame HS's for Johnny and Janey not being able to read or do math? They should have learned that stuff in the primary grades, eh?...Wally:How about this. Most jobs do not require a college degree despite what we have been told. Years agopeople who wanted to be lawyers, doctors,engineers ministers and teachers went to school to acquire specializedknowledge in their desired field. Some people also attended because it was thought to advance their chances of meeting a better class of people. The High schools had programs that prepared most students for the world of work in offices, factories and everything else. There was no need for an office worker or a factory hand to know anything about the plays the Racine, the teachings of Plato, or thebetter paintings of the Renaissance. These were held to be esoteric subjects and seldom discussed inthe bars or living rooms of ordinary Americans.In today's world we have to face the fact that the glitter of an education at an enormous cost may nolonger be desirable or affordable. Perhaps we should explore the idea that our dwindling resources should be spent to train our children for a world of work wherein they or us will not have burdensome student loans to repay and a good job can be had with the right training in the right field. College is not required. In fact, i am told that we are swimming in a sea of college graduates who cannot find a job because their majors in school are nice, but unappealing to employers--e.g. French Literature, Psychology, Communications, English, History, Art History, Music, German. Russian, Spanish and French.Employers and government agencies require college degrees for some jobs because they can get people to apply for them. The lessons learned at school, often have no applicability to the position at all. Takea police officer. Many police departments want their officers to have or get a degree--why? Betterby far to send him to a one year school after the academy where he would learn practical subjectsapplicable to the position--no need for a four year degree except it sounds good.My guess is that we would save tons of money, have a happier student body not being required to takesubjects in which they have no interest and look upon as merely another hurdle to overcome. Wewould all benefit preparing them for the economic world that is coming, not for the world that was.Let college be for the elite, the very bright and the wealthy. The rest of us have family to support anda life to live. Let college be looked upon as a luxury, needed by some, desired by others, but in the enddifficult to justify especially if one looks at the kinds of students many of our colleges are turning out.I would hazard a guess that a graduate of a good urban high school, in 1930 would do better on anexam, mutatis mutandis, that a 2009 college graduate.
Most jobs do not require a college degree despite what we have been told.
True.
Perhaps we should explore the idea that our dwindling resources should be spent to train our children for a world of work wherein they or us will not have burdensome student loans to repay and a good job can be had with the right training in the right field. College is not required.
True again.
Employers and government agencies require college degrees for some jobs because they can get people to apply for them. The lessons learned at school, often have no applicability to the position at all.
The 21st century equivalent of a HS diploma; shows that you showed up, participated, and finished something.
I would hazard a guess that a graduate of a good urban high school, in 1930 would do better on anexam, mutatis mutandis, that a 2009 college graduate.
Indeed; true in my mind.
That assumes that public school adminstrators actually want our children to learn versus do well on standardized tests. I know that the school my son went to in Texas spent the last 1/4 of the school year preparing for the mandatory testing.I bet it would work, but only if the whole program were implemented. Cant you hear the houls from parents now if they implemented something like this in public schools.I honestly dont think the average parent cares about their child's success.One intersting observation. In Texas, my sons teacher told us that we were one of three parents that showed up on parent-teacher conference day. i tend to believe her because the halls were totally empty when we went and we did not see another parent in the hour we were at the school the last time we had a conference. It was during the work day but both my wife and i took the time off to be there. Because we care about our son and his education.The contrast is that here in Germany (my son goes to German schools not American), almost all parents show up and there is a line to see the teachers. I was amazed at the level of parental involvement in Germany after spending three years back in the states.I dont just blame schools for stupid kids. Schools are part of it but I think the biggest part is parents who dont parent. If parents actually got involved with their kids instead of being too busy with their own lives kids would do better in school. Modern educational m.//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Parents have abrogated their role for the education of their children--not all, but lots. One reason forthis is that Mom and Dad are both working 2 or more jobs so as to provide the "necessities" of amodern middle class life. With work, commutes and home they are, according to my experiences, too tired to get involved and also some see little hope of really altering a system run by managers with sinecures and teachers protected by unions more interested in their contractual rights than in educatingthe children. In my opinion the whole thing is a huge scam--not all places and not all schools--but enough of them to convince me that the whole system has to have a fundamental change if we hope toachieve any lasting results that are good. Our federal system makes this nigh on to impossible sounless there is a revolution in education we will continue to turn out students with worthless diplomasand send them to college where the only way they can get out is to pick a diploma mill, choose one thataccepts that a dumbed down student body requires dumbed down courses in a major that in the realworld would be useless unless your Dad owned the company. Students have an unerring ability to detectfrauds, fakes and charlatans--ask them about their courses and teachers sometime. Here is a fairlygood test for a High School sophomore--ask him to sit down at the table and ,without any reference books, write you an essay on ..................... . You will. in most cases, be horrified--I know I was.
