The Purpose of Education

[celestial]

This does seem to be the predominant attitude, but it does cause some problems. We set ourselves up for the thought that a person's worth is wrapped up in how much money they can earn (or how they "contribute to the economy"). This stigma is a big part of why it is difficult to be a SAHP, which I believe is very beneficial for society, probably more so than many jobs that are out there. (personal opinion)

I can totally see what you mean about society valuing people by how much money they make. I don't make that much myself, so it's an issue that hits close to home for me. Raising great kids falls under the category of "contributing a societal need" for me, and I think that being a SAHP is a totally honorable vocation, one that the education system certainly has a role in preparing people for. Still, I think education does have a responsibility to give individuals skills that they can use outside the home in order to make a living for themselves if they need or desire to.

[emmiedahl]

I think it is really important for most people to think about what they want to be as a profession when choosing a college major. There are so many subjects that fascinate me! A lot of them are sciences, which is awesome because that is what I need to take to train for my dream job. There are some interests I have that unfortunately do not lead to any job I would want to have. On a purely pragmatic level, I need to focus on the future rather than my current interests. My formal education should never eclipse my interests, but it would be silly for me to take anthro instead of organic chemistry simply because I like anthro better.

[celestial]

I know so many people who followed their passion for linguistics or whatever and are now employed at McDonalds and struggling to pay rent while student loans hang over their head. I think it is a bad idea to get an education that will not lead to a job if you are someone who will need to work for a living.

There is a reason I use linguistics as an example. I love linguistics! So I read any book about it I can get my hands on, took related classes as electives at university, and I certainly think my ability to speak multiple languages will be helpful as an MD. It would be irresponsible for me to finance an education based on linguistics, though.

OMG, you're talking about me! Linguistics major here. I followed my passion, I speak multiple languages, and I'm on the low end of the financial spectrum. Ok, I'm not exactly working at McDonald's, I teach ESL and find it very fulfilling. BUT, I make a salary that most people would consider to be quite low, and there's really no prospect for (monetary) advancement. Right now it's fine. I'm single and I have cheap tastes. But eventually I'd like to have kids, and I don't like feeling like that might not work out because of financial reasons. I'm looking into other opportunities I can take in addition to my current profession to supplement my income. It's also possible I will go back to school in the future to obtain a profession that actually pays the bills, as several co-workers have done.

[emmiedahl]

OMG, you're talking about me! Linguistics major here. I followed my passion, I speak multiple languages, and I'm on the low end of the financial spectrum. Ok, I'm not exactly working at McDonald's, I teach ESL and find it very fulfilling. BUT, I make a salary that most people would consider to be quite low, and there's really no prospect for (monetary) advancement. Right now it's fine. I'm single and I have cheap tastes. But eventually I'd like to have kids, and I don't like feeling like that might not work out because of financial reasons. I'm looking into other opportunities I can take in addition to my current profession to supplement my income. It's also possible I will go back to school in the future to obtain a profession that actually pays the bills, as several co-workers have done.

I think it is awesome if someone majors in linguistics knowing that they want to go into a field using it! I don't think money is everything, just that you need to think about your needs when planning school.

Any kind of education is inherently good if it teaches you how to think. I guess you just have to balance your goals with that.

[celestial]

I think it is awesome if someone majors in linguistics knowing that they want to go into a field using it! I don't think money is everything, just that you need to think about your needs when planning school.

Any kind of education is inherently good if it teaches you how to think. I guess you just have to balance your goals with that.

You're right, money is not everything. I knew for a long time that this was what I wanted to do, I did it, and I would do it again. To everyone who said, "But you won't make any money!", I said "I don't care." Thing is, though, now that I'm living that reality, I see that it does place some real limitations on my life that I'm not willing to accept. (I don't mind at all living a relatively simple lifestyle because it's what I'm used to, but the not being able to afford a child thing sucks. I want to know I can afford to support a child even if I don't find a partner before I feel ready for it.) I think I'm just realizing that even though I "finished" grad school 4 years ago, my education journey may not be over, as I still have other goals that I want to accomplish. Which is fine by me, actually-- I learning new skills.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I think it depends on the job, though. Many research positions are great for smart but (somewhat) isolated loners and would bore extraverts to tears.

ETA: Of course, all positions require some level of social skills, so it's important schools develop those. Just wanted to point out that there is a place in the workforce for people who just aren't that into constantly networking with others.

I was the typical smart, loner nerd. My grades were great, but my social skills sucked and I had to learn an entirely new set of skills in the real world. Most people need to know how to collaborate, in some way.

[browngrl]

I don't think that education needs to be a black or white issue. Some things work well for memorization - the multiplication tables is one example. Other things need a more hands on approach - lab work/experiments are very helpful to teach scientific principles. Some people learn very well on their own from the get go - others (I would put myself in this category) need to be taught the basics but do very well on their own for continuing education. Education in and of itself is valuable but it has to be balanced with practicality (acquiring a $100 000 dollar debt might not be the best idea if your planned job will only earn you a pittance).

I think the problem comes when people become rigid in their thinking. I think it is more reasonable to be flexible. I don't think it needs to be homeschool or public school or private school exclusively. I went to excellent public schools but my parents also taught me a lot at home and I also did a lot of learning on my own. I am not sure exactly how to translate the flexibility I enjoyed to the American public school system. Listening to the Republican party - it does not seem that infrastructure maintenance/growth merits taxation.

[emmiedahl]

I have to memorize things before I can conceptually understand them. Like, I need to know to be able to repeat the formula for angular momentum off the top of my head before I begin to see how it changes with different radii and velocities. But education should not focus primarily on memorization of fact; that is just the beginning. And in some subjects, like history, it is more important to understand the concept than to know the exact chain of events.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Re career preparation:

1. I think that education should make it possible for people to do something constructive and earn a living. I'm a big fan of kids having part-time jobs and of co-op programs. Otherwise, it's hard to bridge the gap from school to work. It's also a great way for kids to get a taste of the work world, and discover strengths. I loved teaching swimming, for example. Not only did it keep my employed through a recession, but it let me feel like a professional with responsibilities. I also learned about kids, teaching, managing others effectively and dealing with customers. My sister, who has learning disabilities, thrived in part-time jobs and a high school co-op placement, which led to a co-op university program. As an employer, I also look for employees who have experience.

2. I'm glad that some programs have breadth requirements, so that someone can study something other than their major.

3. Learning should be life-long. It doesn't have to be in the form of a university course for credit. My grandparents never graduated high school, but they were very intellectual. They had reading groups, and constantly read and learned about all sorts of things. My grandmother would debate politics and history at all hours, while my grandfather would conduct experiments to demonstrate the power of air pressure, tell us all about Nicola Tesla and alternating current, discuss the origins of the modern alphabet and talk about ancient Egypt.

[AmyP]

I have been mulling thoughts about this for some time. We are divided in this country (maybe in the whole world) by how we view education. There are those that feel that humans should be taught exactly what to think. And there are those who feel that humans should be taught how to think. It is the difference between regurgitating facts and understanding mechanisms. it is the difference between knowing how to use the program and knowing how to write the program. It is the difference between accepting what you are taught and discerning what is meant. It is the difference btween static and dynamic thinking. Ultimately, this is why Ceationists do not understand why learning deeper mechanisms for how beings evolve does not negate, but enhances Darwin's original work. This is also why Scientists fail to see how Creation can be called Science at all. It is not that Scientists think that Creation should not be taught. I know I think it should be taught..as Anthropology. Should children be taught to memorize all of the Presidents or should they be taught about how the conditions in the times affected the choices in leadership and molded the Presidents as leaders? Is memorizing the goal or the tool? Do we want out children ask questions or to be trained to obey?

quote]

Why is this topic always presented in terms of either/or scenarios. Why is it that if you teach your child to memorize a basic set of facts about history, you cannot be teaching them how to think? As if one process negates the other? As if someone who has alot of facts memorized must not know how to think, but someone who has never been required to remember anything has been trained to be a great thinker?

Little kids like facts and stories. They are primarily interested in what happened. My first grader really does not care about the social and political climate of early american history. She does enjoy rattling off the presidents song. There are ages and stages for everything. After all, you can't learn algebra if no-one taught you to add, subtract or multiply. You can't learn the mechanisms of protein interaction if you have not learned (dare I say, memorized) some basic chemistry. You cannot write the program, if you lack the basic skills needed to use the program. You also might need to memorize the coding language, even though it is in a book somewhere. Children who have been taught FACTS in the primary grades actually have some tools to work with when they are old enough for critical thinking. Somewhere between 4th and 6th grade, most kids start to demonstrate an interest in WHY things happened in history. When that happens, they can begin to learn WHY those things happened. They can start to appreciate the disagreements between scholars. They can think about it and start to form their own opinions.

I homeschool because I think the school system falls short on both ends. They don't teach much in the way of facts, and they don't seem to be releasing great critical thinkers either.

[Austin]

Sweeping generalizations much?

[AmyP]

Sweeping generalizations much?

Piaget's theory of cognitive development.

[emmiedahl]

Piaget is an important figure in developmental psychology, but his conclusions are heavily disputed by modern psychologists. He vastly underestimated children's abilities at different stages and downplayed the effects of environment. He had exactly 3 test subjects, his children, and obviously was not in a position to observe them in an unbiased manner.

eta: Piaget is still a big deal because he was the first to suggest that children think and reason differently from adults. In a lot of ways he revolutionized the way children are educated and generally dealt with. But he did make sweeping generalizations.

[FlorenceHamilton]

Thank you all for the fantastic conversation! I so much wanted us to get out of the box a bit on the topic of education.

The comments have all been really interesting. There are a few things that have made me really expand my thinking even more. I totally understand the pragmatic concerns about training for a specific skill set for specific types of jobs. There is a real time that humans begin to hone in on these very things. I still believe that getting a really good grip on processes does have a huge impact on your success and fulfillment in life. Using Emmiedahl's fascination with linguistics as an example, I would argue that this study actually did help prepare her for a life in the sciences and medicine. Through linguistics, a person learns how to observe patterns and structures and figures out how to put them together to create communication...language. Observing structures and finding patterns is the cornerstone of diagnostics. We can certainly argue that the ability to diagnose is core to a medical career.

I do agree that very small children do enjoy memorizing facts. Education does not end in third grade. It is the ability to utilize facts that takes us from concrete to abstract that defines our development into adulthood. I would also argue that small children love also to constantly ask, "WHY?" Even small children are not satisfied with facts alone. Understanding the reasons things happen also helps humans remember the details much better. I really have no objection to memorization as a part of learning. It makes sense to memorize the multiplication tables. However, it also makes sense for kids to go through the mechanics of what it means to multiply. How many people her on FJ calculate a tip by moving calculating 10% and then adding one half of that number to the total? It i much easier to calculate 15% in this way. Understanding how it works gives people a way to figure these things out even if they have not memorized their 15 times table.

Today at me office, two of the young Medical Assistants came across a problem. One of the them had memorized that people who are allergic to shellfish should not be given contrast in their radiologic studies. The other girl could not keep this in her head. So I asked them both to look up the reason why this is the case. They read that iodine, which is common in shellfish is also common in many contract dyes that we use in radiologic studies. Now both girls know why people who are allergic to shellfish generally do not get IV contrast. Because they understand why, both girls have memorized the information.

Both of my Medical Assistants are Spanish speakers. They are helping me to improve my Spanish. They show me little tricks all the time to understand the structure and patterns in the language. We learn from each other. Learning is a lifelong process. It uccurs in a clasroom and in the real world. Humans continue to learn throughout their lives. Many things do get committed to memory as we use the information repeatedly. This is why memorization is only a building block and not an end goal.

Edited for riffles. There are probably still a few I haven't seen

[AmyP]

Piaget is an important figure in developmental psychology, but his conclusions are heavily disputed by modern psychologists. He vastly underestimated children's abilities at different stages and downplayed the effects of environment. He had exactly 3 test subjects, his children, and obviously was not in a position to observe them in an unbiased manner.

eta: Piaget is still a big deal because he was the first to suggest that children think and reason differently from adults. In a lot of ways he revolutionized the way children are educated and generally dealt with. But he did make sweeping generalizations.

true- I was just pointing out that the sweeping generalizations were not exclusively based on my own opinion. There is some educational thought at work here. I do think that K-3 grades are not great years for introducing alot of abstract thinking.

[AmyP]

Thank you all for the fantastic conversation! I so much wanted us to get out of the box a bit on the topic of education.

I do agree that very small children do enjoy memorizing facts. Education does not end in third grade. It is the ability to utilize facts that takes us from concrete to abstract that defines our development into adulthood. I would also argue that small children love also to constantly ask, "WHY?" Even small children are not satisfied with facts alone. Understanding the reasons things happen also helps humans remember the details much better. I really have no objection to memorization as a part of learning. It makes sense to memorize the multiplication tables. However, it also makes sense for kids to go through the mechanics of what it means to multiply. How many people her on FJ calculate a tip by moving calculating 10% and then adding one half of that number to the total? It i much easier to calculate 15% in this way. Understanding how it works gives people a way to figure these things out even if they have not memorized their 15 times table.

Edited for riffles. There are probably still a few I haven't seen

Absolutely, a childs education needs to change somewhere in the upper elementary years. Memorization is not the only thing that is important in education. You need to take those facts somewhere and do something with them. You need to analyze, argue, and learn to express yourself. I feel strongly that not enough time is spent with facts in the early years, and consequently too much time is wasted in the later years with kids learning facts that they should already know.

[holothuroidea]

I never memorized times tables. I just could not keep numbers in my head. The highest I go is 4X4=16. Seriously. I have a hard time with dates and money amounts, too, I have to write them down or I can't remember them.

It didn't stop me from taking 4 years of math in college and being a good enough physical/analytical chemist to have my research published in major journals.

It does take me forever to do math in my head because I do it long hand (3+3+3+3+3 = 3x5), but I'm lightning fast on paper (who knows long division anymore? I do!) and if I'm ever in a situation where I don't have a pencil or a calculator, usually there's someone around who's got more number sense than I do.

I don't put too much emphasis on memorization. If it comes naturally to you, that's fantastic! Use it! But if it does not, there are plenty of ways around it. I wouldn't beat a kid into the ground over it like they have to memorize times tables or they're going to fail at life. Though, I don't know if they're as into shaming kids in school as they used to be.

[emmiedahl]

true- I was just pointing out that the sweeping generalizations were not exclusively based on my own opinion. There is some educational thought at work here. I do think that K-3 grades are not great years for introducing alot of abstract thinking.

Not lots, certainly. But my kids consistently surprised me when I homeschooled. I had a kindergartener who understood the difference between acids and bases, for example. We did the classic baking soda and vinegar thing, and she asked why it happened. She had a lot of ideas, maybe it is what happens when you add a liquid to a powder? So we tried that, no reaction. And so on.

As FlorenceHamilton noted, kids are very into "why?" I usually tell them the technical explanation, and if they don't understand I make it simpler until they get it. Children can understand a lot of things. My daughter is 9 and learning pre-algebra at home. No one in the US would dream of introducing it in a 4th grade class, but she is understanding a surprising lot of it. Also, she is getting the idea that an unknown number is not a scary thing. When I hit algebra, I was terrified because I was being asked to do a completely different kind of math.

Our children get a nasty surprise when they hit real science and math because they have not been prepared to think in that way. My organic professor told me that the US has some of the most challenging universities and some of the least challenging high schools. It's a hard transition; it's no wonder so many struggle and so many decide to forego tertiary education altogether.

[Austin]

I homeschool because I think the school system falls short on both ends. They don't teach much in the way of facts, and they don't seem to be releasing great critical thinkers either.

This was the sweeping generalization to which I was referring.

[FlorenceHamilton]

If public education is failing to both teach facts and teach thinking skills, what should the citizenry do about it?

Should we disband the whole thing? Why use pulic funds to pay for a worthless system?

Should we get involved in public education and help to rebuild it better, faster, stronger?

I have the tools and the resources to make certain that my grandchildren are educated at home and privately. Why should I spend my time and money on other people's children?

Why is it that I got a truly great education in a big city public school in the 1970's and that very same sytem is just about defunct? What on earth happened?

Why did my children get a wonderful education in a suburban public school less than 10 years ago and yet when they return to visit, they are now appalled by what is passing for education today? What on earth happened?

What destroyed public education?Why should we care? Why don't we just take our kids out of the terrible public schools and use all of our resources on them? Is it in any way our responsibility as a part of society to build a program for all children to get a decent start? Isn't that Socialist? Isn't Socialism ALWAYS bad?

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I'm very late to this thread, but have a few thoughts influenced by what I read already.

I agree that it shouldn't be an "either or" question. People should learn lifelong, and just because you go to public schools doesn't mean you can't (1) take private lessons separately (cram school, anyone??) or (2) homeschool. In fact, I discovered the wonderful world of fundies while looking to share tips with homeschoolers, because I used to tutor people with the specific goal of teaching them to homeschool themselves.

The idea of funding schools from property taxes just seems really alien and weird to me, although apparently in most of the US that's "just how it is." All I can say is, if it's true that "money isn't the problem" then it should be just fine to equalize all the funding to the districts, right? Like many places around the world (that the US is always envious of the test results) do it?

Lately there's been some studies done in Finland showing that making equity (rather than any test scores or competitive measures) the goal of their system has in fact produced good outcomes. It would be nice if this got wider press in the US.

As for the "memorization vs. application" thing, as far as I know some of the Classical (with a capital C) curricula have that built in. The idea is that small kids learn some facts, and then slightly larger kids start learning the "why." Makes some sense to me, but then there's always people who complain that people are "learning the same stuff twice, ah, the schools must suck" but I think they're not paying attention to details. There's a reason you can learn national history in elementary school and then again in junior high, y'know? ;)

I think learning technology is useful, as far as learning the technology that people use day to day. People need to know how to use the internet, and it's not inborn. In particular, people need to know how to filter information, how to follow a trail, how to find the ultimate source of something, how to determine the trustworthiness of a source, all that. Why is one web page more trustworthy than another? What does it mean when the quote you're looking up is only found in one exact string format, and only on sites that are allied or even all sponsored by the same publisher? That sort of thing.

Separately from that, as a programmer, I think it would be helpful for people to learn logic, algorithms, how to break down problems, how to make a decision tree (probably that one is most important) what it means to troubleshoot, how to do some complex task by breaking it into small easily answered concrete pieces. Any language will do - if you know how to think, you can learn any programming language you want in no time flat.

As I said, I'm a programmer, I will say that among the people I work with there is every sort of major you can imagine, plenty of people come to this sort of work after a completely unrelated school career. Often people major in a hard science, have endless grad school years and postdoc years where they manage the lab's computers, they have to write programs to analyze their data, they eventually find out academia isn't hiring, realize they can get paid quite well to do the same system administration work they've been doing for years, start doing that, realize they're programming a lot also as part of that, and some of them move over into programming.

My own degree is in electrical engineering though I've never used it. All the learning I use in my current work I learned via jobs, and I got my first job (data entry, which led to programming) fresh out of high school purely on the basis of a test which required me to be bilingual and able to quickly diagram sentences in both my languages - so I got lucky.

[freejoytoo]

Why does socialism have to have such a knee jerk reaction in the US? It works pretty well in other countries.

[AmyP]

If public education is failing to both teach facts and teach thinking skills, what should the citizenry do about it?

Should we disband the whole thing? Why use pulic funds to pay for a worthless system?

Should we get involved in public education and help to rebuild it better, faster, stronger?

I have the tools and the resources to make certain that my grandchildren are educated at home and privately. Why should I spend my time and money on other people's children?

Why is it that I got a truly great education in a big city public school in the 1970's and that very same sytem is just about defunct? What on earth happened?

Why did my children get a wonderful education in a suburban public school less than 10 years ago and yet when they return to visit, they are now appalled by what is passing for education today? What on earth happened?

What destroyed public education?Why should we care? Why don't we just take our kids out of the terrible public schools and use all of our resources on them? Is it in any way our responsibility as a part of society to build a program for all children to get a decent start? Isn't that Socialist? Isn't Socialism ALWAYS bad?

I don't know what has caused the decline in public education. I don't think it is strictly funding, however. I live in a fairly affluent area, that has become more affluent since I was in public school here, and the education that the children are receiving has declined. I know that in some school systems funding is a huge issue, and I don't mean to downplay it's importance. I can only speak to my own experience in a school system that is very well funded, and still declining in my opinion.

I have no problem funding public schools even though I don't use them. As broken as the system may be, I would never advocate disbanding it because it gives all children a chance for an education.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'd also like to see parents being free to send their child to any public school, not just the one that they are zoned for.

In Toronto, school boards no longer receive funding from the local property taxes, but the school zone rules are still in effect. It has created a 2-tier system. If you are in a good school district, property values skyrocket. As a result, you can only get into those schools if you have money. The worst schools in the worst areas have issues with gangs and violence, and kids have even been killed. Parents in wealthier areas know that their children will not attend the worst schools, so there is less political will to improve them. It also means that the public schools aren't truly models of diversity and integration, because there is so much economic segregation.

[Kitty]

I'd also like to see parents being free to send their child to any public school, not just the one that they are zoned for.

In Toronto, school boards no longer receive funding from the local property taxes, but the school zone rules are still in effect. It has created a 2-tier system. If you are in a good school district, property values skyrocket. As a result, you can only get into those schools if you have money. The worst schools in the worst areas have issues with gangs and violence, and kids have even been killed. Parents in wealthier areas know that their children will not attend the worst schools, so there is less political will to improve them. It also means that the public schools aren't truly models of diversity and integration, because there is so much economic segregation.

^This.

I run around with a lot of libertarians, and they're all for private forces in education. This is the ONE force I'm fine with in education. Send your kids to *any* public school, anywhere. Because schools will get the hint when droves of students start travelling further away to better ones. Fuck, quite a few kids in my own public high school transferred to other schools if they could--they'd live with relatives in the different school districts.

I'm not sure how this would work in the US, because everyone's so big on "states' rights" here. As always I wonder about kids on state borders. If they're like me and lived in eastern NC where schools are pretty shitty, it would take shit-tons of money to transfer to Virginia where the schools were generally better. I drove 35 minutes each morning to a school with tons of problems thanks to the good ol' boy administrators, when there were FIVE high schools within that radius. Three of which were in Virginia.