Widespread Education

[Winchester]

Me too.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='06 February 2010 - 07:03 AM' timestamp='1265457797' post='2051910']
The American school system was largely modeled after that of the absolute monarchy of Prussia and is designed to inculcate blind loyalty and obedience to authority, as well as turn children into good factory workers. Also, it was originally intended to indoctrinate the children of Catholic immigrants into Protestantism. How can such a system ever be anything other than what it's always been and is right now?
[/quote]

While much of what you say is true (especially the part about making sure immigrant children were Protestantized), what is wrong with blind loyalty and obedience to authority?

~Sternhauser

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Winchester' date='06 February 2010 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1265467560' post='2051932']
So my orange jumpsuit all through Catholic school was unneccesary?
[/quote]

I only lasted a year at Catholic school. Not that I found my public school all that great, even though it's supposed to be one of the better ones.

I tend to trust the ability of people, even kids, to manage their own lives, if given the freedom (and responsibility) to do it. Many people think this is naive, but it is my opinion. Our society infantilizes young people. In the old days you were considered an adult by the time you were thirteen. Now we have thirty year old who don't seem to have grown up.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='06 February 2010 - 12:08 PM' timestamp='1265476134' post='2051998']
While much of what you say is true (especially the part about making sure immigrant children were Protestantized), what is wrong with blind loyalty and obedience to authority?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

How can a blind loyalist ever know the nature or character of the authority he follows?

[Winchester]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='06 February 2010 - 12:09 PM' timestamp='1265476142' post='2051999']
Our society infantilizes young people. [/quote]
Agreed.

[add]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='06 February 2010 - 01:09 PM' timestamp='1265476142' post='2051999']
I tend to trust the ability of people, even kids, to manage their own lives, if given the freedom (and responsibility) to do it.
[/quote]

yes, like beer pong; kids need the freedom to binge and party down

Edited February 6, 2010 by apparently

[Winchester]

A tendency is not a universality. I understand krp's position.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='apparently' date='06 February 2010 - 03:14 PM' timestamp='1265487241' post='2052098']
yes, like beer pong; kids need the freedom to binge and party down
[/quote]
werd

[Hassan]

[quote name='Winchester' date='03 February 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1265222549' post='2050516']
I submit that the idea behind attempting to educate everyone sprang out of the philosophy that demanded the destruction of the aristoracy. The idea (consciously stated or not) was to make everyone an aristocrat. Whether or not this is possible, I leave aside; what I do state is that the modern American education system does not pursue this goal, but instead simply "trains" children. It trains them in math, some history and science and (in a grossly diminishing quantity) physical prowess. It does not educate or enlighten them. It does not teach them to think. This is why our nation is in an intellectual descent.

I am aware there are philsophy courses and some philosophers are discussed briefly in elementary through high school, but I don't think there's any real attempt to make children into thinkers. Further, I think schools discourage that. I think they come up with nice ideas and then encourage students to "think" of ways to fulfill this nice idea without questioning the idea itself. For instance: "No place for hate" slogans, which seem to ignore the fact that some things are quite worthy of hate (in a completely vulgar sense, not the moral/theological meaning of the word), or seem to be. Hate is presumed bad, no explanation is really given and then it becomes bad to hate. It's even worse than it would be because the concept of hate is distorted generally to mean disagreement with some stance or another. Sloppy langauge is the order of the day.

I submit that the only suitable purpose of widespread, long term (12 years is a damned long time) education is to teach children to become aristocrats--that is people capable of true thought, useful skepticism and leadership (clearly of varying degrees). Everything else is simply training, which can be focused more toward areas of interest without giving people the illusion that they've received something they've not.
[/quote]

I think there is a lot of truth to this. I have a really interesting professor right now. He's a genuine caricature of the brilliant but eccentric professor. Odd mannerism, tends to go on bizare, apparently unrelated tangents, and distrusts about every authority figure (he calls Obama "Berry" a lot and doesn't seem to have been a fan of Bush). He's an expert on the cold war though and seemingly knows about everything there is to know about the cold war communist block. But once while discussing Auschwitz he suddenly demanded "but what don't you know about Auschwitz?". It helped me realize how little I know about the Nazi genocide program. He didn't mean like in a technical sense but in a more general sense. He actually does that quite a bit.

About the indoctrination by dogmatically liberal professors. In my experience, most are liberals on the American political spectrum, but not vestigial Marxists left over from the 60's. Leninism is generally described as a political system which is inherently unstable and overwhelmingly requires political violence to function; free markets are usually presented as inherent to free societies, et cetera. I don't know how most of them feel about abortion or gay marriage because there is not instance where such a topic would come up. I think that generally speaking reasoned, intelligent criticisms of conventional academic thought and social assumptions are encouraged. Reasoned being a key point. If you're in an ethics class and beaver dam homosexuality without being able to provide on objective, rational basis to the condemnation you probably aren't going to do well. If you want to present a reasoned critique of the utilitarian ethics on which the modern acceptance of homosexuality rests you will probably be fine, so long as it is reasoned and well thought out. There are certainly exceptions. Professors preaching liberal dogma on irrelevant tangents. My friend has a chemistry professor who has various Biblical proverbs as his signature on his emails to the class. It goes both ways. Generally speaking the professor is just interested in giving a lecture and then getting back to their other duties, which they usually tend to view as their "real" work. UNC Chapel Hill has a reputation of being a pretty liberal school and generally speaking it is demographically. But in terms of aggressive, in your face liberal activism, it's not really big.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Era Might' date='03 February 2010 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1265245032' post='2050874']
I have no problem with guidance (and in fact, it is crucial to our lives), but true guidance respects freedom and independence. A guide should guide, pose questions, share expertise and experience. But a guide is not to be confused with the modern "teacher." The modern teacher's authority over the student is based solely on being in a role of authority. But a guide/mentor/elder/advisor holds authority because others respect his expertise/wisdom/knowledge, and they freely seek it out.[/QUOTE]

A teacher and particularly professor has the authority they have because they are viewed as experts and hence respected. Guiding is fine to an extent, but at some point to master a subject you're probably going to have to memorize a large number of facts. I'm in Russian language, Soviet/Post Soviet Politics, Occupation of Germany and the Beginings of the Cold War, International Conflict Proccess, amd Great Decisions. All of them have deal with subjects that require a great deal fact memorization. No matter how naturally curious I or any other student is, we aren't going to intuit that Stalin died in 1953. Critical thought and analysis does come in to play, but it does so as something to be done after you have mastered the raw factual data.

[QUOTE]Part of the problem in modern society is that we only value exploration when it is done in the presence of someone with institutional authority. The modern classroom prevents students from engaging each other. Even in "class discussions," the teacher is always lurking in the background. Students are conditioned to channel their learning through the structures of the schooling institution.[/QUOTE]

Dorms are usually a hot bed of a great deal of drinking and a great deal of discussion of topic students are interested in. I don't know about your school but generally speaking learning outside the classroom is seen as a great thing.

[QUOTE]Getting together at a coffee shop to discuss a book is seen as informative leisure, but not as "serious" learning. We have this mentality that "serious" learning only takes place at a schooling institution, under the watchful eye of an institutionalized "teacher."
[/quote]

Yeah, because an informed discussion is something that comes after you have some knowledge about what you're talking about. You can learn a lot talking about various topics over a beer/coffee/sleepless dorm night, but most people meeting there are undergraduates who are not experts in the field. I don't know about you, but I learn a whole hell of a lot more about Russian politics by listining for an hour and fifteen minutes to my professor who has spent how ever many years it has been since he graduated from Oxford studying Russian politics, speaks Russian fluently, and has traveled throughout the country than I do talking with other undergraduates who have read some books about Russian politics, kind of speak Russian well enough to get by, and would like to study abroad in St. Petersburg sometime. You can learn things, but it's just probably not going to be as intense or informative. Most schools do have a system to more personal, discussion based learning. That's generally what office hours are for. Most professors are honestly happy when an undergraduate is interested enough to stop by and discuss what the class is learning in more detail/more give and take.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Hassan' date='10 February 2010 - 01:31 PM' timestamp='1265826712' post='2054775']
A teacher and particularly professor has the authority they have because they are viewed as experts and hence respected.[/quote]
A teacher has the authority they have because they are in an institution that sets the rules. The modern teacher's "authority" is an institutional authority, not a moral or intellectual authority. There are many brilliant people working in schooling institutions. But the institutional authority that they hold only hinders their ability to wield moral and intellectual authority over their students. I have had professors whose intellectual excellence I have greatly respected...but it was not their institutional authority which won them my respect. I respected them in spite of their institutional authority, not because of it.

[quote]Guiding is fine to an extent, but at some point to master a subject you're probably going to have to memorize a large number of facts.[/quote]
Yes, you are going to have to memorize a lot of material. And nobody can "teach" you that material. You have to learn it for yourself. Even in the modern schooling institution, teachers do not "teach" us what we know, even though we believe that they do (and that false belief is one of the myths upon which modern schooling is built). Professors either rehash what you've already read on your own in the textbook, or else the professor discusses some further points beyond the basics that you've already learned through your own studying.

[quote]I'm in Russian language, Soviet/Post Soviet Politics, Occupation of Germany and the Beginings of the Cold War, International Conflict Proccess, amd Great Decisions. All of them have deal with subjects that require a great deal fact memorization. No matter how naturally curious I or any other student is, we aren't going to intuit that Stalin died in 1953. Critical thought and analysis does come in to play, but it does so as something to be done after you have mastered the raw factual data.[/quote]
Memorization is not done by a teacher. A teacher does not cause you to memorize something. Memorization is something that you do yourself. A guide/mentor/adviser is different from the modern "teacher." A guide/mentor/adviser is not there to deposit "information" into your brain as though you're a bank; the guide/mentor/adviser is there to dialogue with you, to assist you on your journey.

[quote]I don't know about your school but generally speaking learning outside the classroom is seen as a great thing.[/quote]
That's great. But the problem is still that this is taking place in "dorms." Dorms are part of the institution. What we need is for people to get together in the real world, outside of the schooling institution. Janitors and waitresses should be as welcome to the discussion of ideas as much as "intellectuals" are. Modern schools isolate people from the real world, thereby turning the discussion of ideas into a special privilege for "intellectuals."

[quote]Yeah, because an informed discussion is something that comes after you have some knowledge about what you're talking about.[/quote]
Everyone has something to talk about.

[quote]You can learn a lot talking about various topics over a beer/coffee/sleepless dorm night, but most people meeting there are undergraduates who are not experts in the field.[/quote]
You do not have to be an expert in a field to have meaningful discussions about that field. As Robin Williams says to Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting," what's the use of talking if I can't learn anything from you that I can't read in some book? However, as I said before, guides are very important in life. A meaningful discussion does not require everyone (or even necessarily anyone) to be an expert in a particular field. Each person in the discussion has their own unique perspective and their own unique contributions. Each person can help guide the others in the way that they are able. If someone in the discussion is an expert in a particular field, then they can contribute that expertise. One of the problems with the modern school is that the teacher-student relationship is based on institutional authority, and it is nearly impossible to have a meaningful discussion in such an environment, because the teacher claims institutional authority within the discussion; for example, the teacher claims the right to set the topic and to moderate the direction of the discussion. An intellectual discussion should not be done under institutional control; a meaningful discussion happens between people, not between institutional roles.

[quote]I don't know about you, but I learn a whole hell of a lot more about Russian politics by listining for an hour and fifteen minutes to my professor who has spent how ever many years it has been since he graduated from Oxford studying Russian politics, speaks Russian fluently, and has traveled throughout the country than I do talking with other undergraduates who have read some books about Russian politics, kind of speak Russian well enough to get by, and would like to study abroad in St. Petersburg sometime. You can learn things, but it's just probably not going to be as intense or informative. Most schools do have a system to more personal, discussion based learning. That's generally what office hours are for. Most professors are honestly happy when an undergraduate is interested enough to stop by and discuss what the class is learning in more detail/more give and take.[/quote]
I have no problem with lectures. I think they're great. In fact, if I could abolish the modern university and re-create it, my ideal university would center around lectures. But these lectures would not be "classes" as we know them. First of all, attendance would not be mandatory. Second, there would be no "homework" or any other mandatory assignments. Third, there would be no "curriculum." The professor would lecture on topics that interest him, and students would attend whatever lectures interest them. The professor would not be there to "teach," but to share his expertise and to present an argument for discussion. Student discussions would all take place outside of institutional control; these discussions would be organized and led by students. There would be no institutional control over student discussions, but I am sure that professors would be more than happy to join in these discussions as fellow participants.

The problem is not with listening to other people in order to learn from what they have to say. Relationships (in which you both listen and speak) are the essence of learning. The problem is that modern schools are based on institutional relationships rather than real relationships. Take, for example, a university professor who takes class attendance. There is no freedom in this kind of relationship. The institution controls everything, down to your very attendance. You attend, not because the teacher is going to give an interesting lecture, but because the institution requires you to attend; your interest in the lecture is irrelevant as far as the institution is concerned.