Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Trekkin]

Eh, as a STEM major and employee, I have to say that cutting the arts and humanities is a TERRIBLE idea. They're called the humanities for a reason; they give students a mental gear shift from STEM content, which, at least for me, was desperately needed.

Oh, I'm one too, and I agree that it's needed for some people. I just don't think we need to test students on how well they can make that shift or control what they shift to or really any of the ephemera of formal education -- in which case we can also just let people do what they want with their own time and stop throwing money at making them better at it.

That was sort of the underlying conflation I was getting at in the rant above: that students need to be taught everything they might want to know. They explicitly need to be taught everything they need but don't want to know, since if they want to know it, they'll have a jolly time learning what they want about it without needing to be forced.

[Doomblade187]

It's simply that cutting all federal funds for such education that isn't deemed essential then leads to those fields suffering losses that then hurt our society - I agree not everyone needs to take English class, I disagree that we should stop funding English class.

[Trekkin]

It's simply that cutting all federal funds for such education that isn't deemed essential then leads to those fields suffering losses that then hurt our society - I agree not everyone needs to take English class, I disagree that we should stop funding English class.

Okay. How, though? I'm asking earnestly, because a lot of the justifications I hear for teaching the humanities on societal grounds (critical thinking, organization, etc) don't actually require teaching the humanities. What do students get out of English class that they can't get out of science class?

[Autohummer]

It's simply that cutting all federal funds for such education that isn't deemed essential then leads to those fields suffering losses that then hurt our society - I agree not everyone needs to take English class, I disagree that we should stop funding English class.

Okay. How, though? I'm asking earnestly, because a lot of the justifications I hear for teaching the humanities on societal grounds (critical thinking, organization, etc) don't actually require teaching the humanities. What do students get out of English class that they can't get out of science class?

As a student who took both science and English literature at different stages of education, I think philosophy helps you come up with sound ideas, English (or any course in your native language) teaches you how to explain and communicate those ideas and gives you tools to receive what others are doing (English is a better language to learn simply because it is currently the lingua franca,) finally, science helps you turn ideas into reality. All three are important.

[wierd]

Considering (at least for US schools anyway) that the majority of the time, students are stuck in "No, really,-- THIS IS HOW YOU USE A COMMA" hell, rather than discussing Kipling (which is what you are more concerned with), the thing they get out of it is being literate most, it not all, of the time.

Also, there is societal benefit to being at least exposed to literature like 1984, and pals. This is especially true in the technology front, where the things people are working on could very well be used by people who very much have ill intent toward society and social freedoms. Being armed and dangerous as a conscientious dissenter can mean the difference between allowing (and even actively working on features of) a technologically facilitated atrocity, and preventing that atrocity.  (See for instance, this tidbit from last year. Google is of course, a soulless horror that wants the money, and China wants its policies enforced and clearly gives less than two shits about freedoms of any kind for its citizens, but that the plans were exposed and partially derailed by conscientious objectors in the technology front is still very important.)

There's important things you are throwing out with that bathwater.  Sure, it doesn't need gushing, and ribald acts of sophistry like English Majors tend to get involved with-- Just functional aspects of having been exposed to it.

Which then brings up a functional question;  If the goal is to assure that people have simply been exposed to these ideas (for the protection of society from malicious but powerful actors), how do you assure that this is the case, without some form of diagnostic test? 

[Autohummer]

Also, there is societal benefit to being at least exposed to literature like 1984, and pals. This is especially true in the technology front, where the things people are working on could very well be used by people who very much have ill intent toward society and social freedoms. Being armed and dangerous as a conscientious dissenter can mean the difference between allowing (and even actively working on features of) a technologically facilitated atrocity, and preventing that atrocity. 

This reminds me of a rant from a university professor two weeks ago. He is from Singapore, best known for its STEM and tech development. He laments why his kid is forced through a pure STEM regimen with no chance of ever contacting arts and humanities (due to heavy workload.) A tutor once told me the answer: authoritarian states wouldn't mind its citizens taking in knowledge, as long as it is science and technologically-related, those that produce physical, tangible value, as a citizenry of educated workers are of no threat to the government. Literature, art and philosophy, those parts of our body of knowledge that deals with thinking about intangible values, are to be quickly banned, subverted or co-opted, as those make people think about their situation and threaten to challenge the current social order.

Which then brings up a functional question;  If the goal is to assure that people have simply been exposed to these ideas (for the protection of society from malicious but powerful actors), how do you assure that this is the case, without some form of diagnostic test? 

I think the exact mode of assessment is best left to the individual teachers/tutors/professors teaching the courses and the test should be strictly what it is, diagnostic, not competitive. The moment test scores are tied to rewards, tests immediately lose their purpose.

[wierd]

One of Trekkin's objections was that giving evaluations over subject matter outside STEM was a waste. 

Oh, I'm one too, and I agree that it's needed for some people. I just don't think we need to test students on how well they can make that shift or control what they shift to or really any of the ephemera of formal education -- in which case we can also just let people do what they want with their own time and stop throwing money at making them better at it.

as well as asking what tangible benefit there is to mandating exposure to certain ideas

Okay. How, though? I'm asking earnestly, because a lot of the justifications I hear for teaching the humanities on societal grounds (critical thinking, organization, etc) don't actually require teaching the humanities. What do students get out of English class that they can't get out of science class?

I gave a specific set of reasons, and asked how he would expect to assure that those basic exposure requirements were being met without some form of diagnostic test.

[Trekkin]

A tutor once told me the answer: authoritarian states wouldn't mind its citizens taking in knowledge, as long as it is science and technologically-related, those that produce physical, tangible value, as a citizenry of educated workers are of no threat to the government. Literature, art and philosophy, those parts of our body of knowledge that deals with thinking about intangible values, are to be quickly banned, subverted or co-opted, as those make people think about their situation and threaten to challenge the current social order.

That makes some sense, but it does raise a question I don't think we're well equipped to deal with as a society: if education is to move beyond what is objectively true, whose views are to be inculcated into the children? We sort of have it both ways now, but if we're going to consciously defend the humanities as the way we instill necessary rebelliousness, what sort of rebelliousness is necessary is going to be hotly debated, which in turn suggests that perhaps compulsory education isn't the best forum for it.

That's sort of what I've been getting at this whole time: it's possible and probably ideal to have an exclusively STEM education that focuses exclusively on provable facts and the methodologies behind them without necessarily precluding students learning philosophy and art and literature on their own. Frankly, if you want kids to read good books, forcing them to raid them for symbolism to regurgitate via essays is not a great way to make them want to do that. How many times have you heard people say they hate a certain book (Fahrenheit 451, The Scarlet Letter, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc) because they were forced to read it in high school?

It strikes me that there's a fairly clear division between the things we want students to know in order to be useful in life and the things we want them to care about in order to live a good/happy/necessarily rebellious life, and that perhaps the ideal educational system would reflect that. (EDIT: To be clear, this is meant as an oblique answer to wierd's question. The parts of ethics that fall outside of RCR fall into the second category, so evaluating whether kids are exposed to them is probably a matter outside of education itself as we normally define it.)

[wierd]

In many respects, I am inclined to agree. However, abuses of systems are a mainstay of malicious actors.  This includes abuses of overloading students with curriculum, to assure they never expose themselves to these forms of "entertainment."

This is further complicated by the physical limits of individuals to have attention for things that are obscure (or MADE to be obscure artificially; See the kind of effects that Google's chinese search engine would introduce for "undesirable" media. You cannot electively seek out information that you do not know exists).  There is research being conducted on how attention patterns can be used to evaluate what media will be consumed, and by whom.  If the outset goal is to prevent students from electively seeking the media that would transform them into conscientious objectors, then having that kind of tool at their disposal would guide their policy to prevent that exact thing.  You would need some kind of bulwark to prevent that, and assure that students DO IN FACT, have sufficient free time to consume such media, AND-- that such media is readily available and free from obstruction. (technological or otherwise.)  Failures of either of those only would assure that said actors can abuse the system you propose, and they have no reason not to.

[Folly]

The list of jobs an American can get with a High School education is practically identical to the list of jobs they could get with no education at all. All of that time, effort, and money taken out of our children's formative years, and the net result is nothing of any value. This alone should be all the argument needed to persuade for educational reform.

I honestly don't understand why this isn't a more widely discussed issue. If a politician ran for President on a platform of meaningful educational reform, I don't care what their policy is on climate, guns, immigration, or anything else, they would get my vote.

[Doomblade187]

To be fair, Folly, the job limitations is the fault of corporate 'merica, but yes, education reform is very important.

[wierd]

It's also a problem with the school system.


The problem (tm):

Corporate america is not getting the "Qualified applicants" it needs straight from the public school system. (full stop)


Analysis:

Corporate america wants universal employees. (what they really mean by "qualified applicant") It wants to not think about employees as individuals that have a unique mixture of strengths and weaknesses, and wants a quick and easy to filter demographic that is more or less homogeneous. (Often, they also want unreasonable levels of competency or skill, at bargain basement prices, but that's another, if related, issue. The real issue is not what the standard is for the universal employee, it is that they want a universal employee.) It does not get this from the public school system.  In the futile effort to get this, it has turned to higher education, since public education has proven intractable in providing it. (because it is not actually possible.) This is why you need a college degree (In anything-- doesn't matter) to get a job doing menial office tasks that are really "Jobs that require little training, and no real degree of skill" but do require basic competency in written communication and mathematics, as well as the ability to faithfully follow instructions.  This shift in tactics has resulted in the ever ballooning need for education credentials, the failure of the higher learning academic system to meet that demand, and the resulting upward spiral of tuition and debt, just to get said terrible office jobs.  It is also why employers *STILL* cannot find "qualified applicants".

Real problem:

Corporate America wants something that they cannot legitimately expect to have-- Universal, interchangeable, and faceless employees.

They have lobbied the government very hard to try and manipulate education to attain this holy grail, and refuse to accept that this is impossible.
They refuse to accept that this is impossible, because it would force them to have to evaluate each candidate that comes through the door, and the separation of job skills in the office environment means that the person doing the hiring is not able to properly make the evaluation for specific roles within the company in a meaningful way. (If you are hiring an EE to design novel circuits for you, they do not need to be extremely chipper, jovial, or to be able to answer bullshit softskill questions. They need to drop useful solutions down for difficult electronic logic problems in a timely manner, and do so reliably and with little fuss. The HR woman cannot evaluate this guy; He literally spends all his time designing novel circuits; She has no idea what a diode is. He does not talk about other things. He's actually rather dull as a person, but he's the person you really want for this role. Naturally, HR dismisses his application after the interview stage, because he's just so odd (HR woman just cannot understand him as a person), and therefor "Not a good fit".)

 They also want universal, interchangeable, and faceless employees so that they can leverage employee markets in other countries, to maximize on profit generation. Being tied to a specific locality, because that is where the talent is, gives them nightmares. Especially if that region has a high cost of living, and commands high wages.

The delusion that this is possible is what drives things like H1B abuse, where diploma mills in other countries (which will remain nameless) shit out people with literally worthless credentials, and perform terribly (but are substantially less expensive for the employer) to get mass inducted into sophisticated projects. Naturally, it causes chaos, and corporate america does not understand why. (or rather, refuses to understand why.)

This demand for an unattainable ideal of a universally competent bottom level employee has manifestations in the public education sector, in such things as "No child left behind" and "basic competencies" requirements from the federal government. 

Children are HIGHLY variable.  No two perform alike. Expecting identical performance metrics from something that divergent is madness.  But that is where we are.

Personally, I would MUCH rather see education not focus on this bullshit and unattainable "Universal employee" model, and focus instead on a matrix-breakdown scoring system, where individual students are constantly evaluated and properly placed within the maximally performant categories of academic accomplishment, then given a final matrix evaluation upon completion, followed by optional higher learning credentials, which are voluntarily chosen by the student.

That way, the EE with the softskills deficit has something to show HR that "Hey, look, I can fucking run CIRCLES around other people in my discipline", instead of being expected to be an idealized "perfect employee" that is well spoken, dresses very nicely, smells nice, is witty and personable, **AND** just so happens to also be able to do the job hired for and can also do any other job that middle management wants done, and of course-- never complains or causes trouble of any kind-- that HR is currently looking for, for every position. Including janitor.  HR instead gets handed a scoring breakdown range, she checks the candidate's educational score matrix, and if it's in the allowed tolerances, she puts it in the callback pile (where it belongs.) She is told straight up that appearance means precisely dick. That's not what he is hired to do.

It also means that the person with strong communication skills, that is very outgoing, etc--- is placed in careers best suited to them, like sales.


It also, of course, means that people that simply do poorly *IN EVERYTHING*, get properly identified as such, and get the proper social support they need as adults instead of going into homeless shelters when they cannot find or keep work, -- or from ending up in situations of sexual exploitation, or lives of crime.


Pulling the fantasy of the universal employee out of the minds of employers though has proven to be intractable.  I expect they will bankrupt the entire country before they accept that it is impossible, and probably NOT EVEN THEN.

[Trolldefender99]

I think schools are fine? I actually like they are teaching heavily on acceptance of others, peoples differences, letting kids know that they can be anything they want and not just job wise but if they are transgender its okay. This is to me more important than math or science which is not really worth anything these days in society as a whole. Leaving college with great skills in math and science doesn't often end up getting a good job that pays off college debt. Where as today society has a big issue with racism and bigotry, not just in the US but many places and its more important (at least currently) that schools teach against this.

Society will not progress on hatred and fear, no amount of knowing math or knowing how to write or science or any of that will move forward with hatred.

Look at china, they don't teach acceptance or any of that, and they are being very aggressive toward their neighbors. Where is math and science getting them? All its getting them is a military based country that heavily focuses on bigger and "better" weapons to use against others, instead of learning to accept others. At least in the US, being required to learn to accept and not attack neighbors is great and I hope it leads to less people feeling the need to go into the military. So schools teaching against aggressiveness, bullying, hatred and fear is where schools should continue moving in their learning.

There will be no knowledge or advancement no matter how good the teaching is of math/science or whatever, if everyone wants to kill each other or bully each other.

(edit: I shall add my own experience

Back in middle school I was heavily bullied because I was (don't need it as much anymore but still use it a lot) stuck in a wheelchair. Instead of learning, I was bullied and hated going to school so I didn't pay any attention to anything I was "taught". Todays schools, they teach against bullying and accepting those who are different. This makes learning vastly superior than what it used to be, because it makes people less likely to hate school if everyone hates/bullies them because they are different. I learned nothing in middleschool because I hated it so didn't give it one cent of attention. And while math/science/history etc is important, its vastly more important to teach acceptance and this is what many schools are doing.

So schools compared to when I went, that is a vast improvement. Far more important than math/science/history, where no one learns anything if they hate going to school if they are being bullied.

[nenjin]

Also, the "parents not doing their part" trope is often used as a racist trope. Minor note.

To put my comments into perspective: I went to an almost completely white highschool from the decidedly upper end of town. My experience wasn't with inner city or urban kids who "blah blah blah" stereotypes. College was a little more diverse but not by a wide margin. When you hold socio-economic differences equal, the lack of parenting regardless of race still results in kids not reaching their potential, wasting a lot of their time in school, and wasting a lot of taxpayer money as the system tries to account for that problem.

[Doomblade187]

Oh, I agree that bad parenting hurts kids, I didn't mean to Accuse you or anything. Just wanted to caution against media that pushes the message too hard.