here is the comment of an American student of philosophy who is on
our German discussion list here in Hamburg. I have learned a lot from
the other xmca comments which in many respects say the same as Therese
does here. But she has the opportunity to compare the educational
cultures, and therefore her critique and correction was very valuable
for me.
Arne.
ps. Normally she is writing German on the list, some traces are still
in the text. I have added a translation in [].
-------=20
>Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 16:14:30 +0200
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>To: xcsa who-is-at rzaix52.rrz.uni-hamburg.de
>From: Therese Foote <T_Foote who-is-at public.uni-hamburg.de>
>Subject: Re: someone should clarify
>Reply-To: xcsa who-is-at rzaix52.rrz.uni-hamburg.de
Interesting words from Arne. (Ich goenne mir heute ein bisschen Englisch.)
[Today I allow myself a little English]
> Developmentalism: An Obscure but Pervasive Restriction on
>> Educational Improvement
...
zu einer misslungene Vygotsky-Interpretation sagt er:
[on a failed interpretation of Vygotsky, he says:]
>It is truly inconceivable to me how it was possible to get this
>statement through the peer reviewing process of the electronic
>journal. Not only the author, but also none of the reviewers=20
>evidently ever read more than some lines or paragraphs of the socio-
>cultural literature...
>
>Well, well. This does indeed say a lot about the quality of US
>American higher education, especially in psychology and educational
>studies, doesn't it ??
Now, now, Arne, let's not get too overbearingly eurocentrically snobbish
here! Having never read a word of Vygotsky myself, of course I can't judge
how horribly amiss this author's interpretation was, and psychology and
educational studies do perhaps have a bad rep in the States (at my
university in Utah, Psychology was typically the major chosen by the yo-yos
who wanted to take easy classes).
On the other hand, I was told by my philosophy professors that if I got my
doctoral degree (in philosophy) in France or Germany, I could forget getting
a job in the U.S. Why? It's simply not as respected as an American degree.
In Germany, I was told, people meander around the university taking classes
when they feel like it, original thought-work is seldom required, and the
whole degree-taking process is sort of a laid-back, long, drawn-out,
leisurely affair. Graduate school in the U.S. (as I hear from my philosophy
graduate student acquaintances) is, on the other hand, 'dog hard' - one is
subject to constant competitive pressure, one studies as many hours per week
as any law student, and however hard one works, if one is lacking in sheer
originality and brilliance, one is in constant danger of being cut from the
program.
My impression is that these remarks are valid for the so-called humanistic
disciplines generally, not just for philosophy - and as far as the natural
sciences go - everyone seems to agree that Europe is generally far behind.
Einzelne Ausnahmen, nat=FCrlich.
During my college years I typically wrote 75 pages or more per semester -
except the first year, during which I studied music and practised the piano
four to six hours a day. I could never have gotten along without a
computer, and nearly every American student these days has one.
(Bahnhof-Zeitung hat wahrscheinlich die genaue Statistik.)
[the newspapers most probably have the exact statistics] Really a big
contrast to studying here at the Uni-Hamburg! Even as an undergraduate, the
pressure to achieve was certainly intense, the more so because studying in
the U.S. is so expensive. In my experience, the system was not only infused
with the so-called protestant work ethic, but creative thinking was also
demanded. I.e. in order to succeed one had to be not just 'creative,
problem-solving, puzzle-loving' but at the same time also 'rule-following,
reproductive, routine-loving', i.e. 'dull and unattractive.' It was 'fun',
invigorating, but at the same time extremely painful, to sometimes
psychologically harmful extents. Nearly worked myself to death. Study in
Germany is like a vacation in comparison.
So much for higher education. The secondary & primary educational situation
is a whole nother ball game, so to speak, perhaps as a result of being
compulsory and in very many aspects administrated by local and federal
governments?
>This means that "fun instead of work" conditions in any school will
>on the average boost the differences between those that already have
>learnt how to have fun at "decontextualized" (formal, game-like,
>purely symbolic) tasks, and those that haven't had those cultural
>contexts in their early years. Also, the creative, problem-solving,
>puzzle-loving individuals will be rewarded while the rule-following,
>reproductive, routine-loving ones will be looked at as dull and
>unattractive.
>
>This looks like a different sort of elitist system than the one that=20
>paid the highest price for the most disciplined engineer and=20
>entrepreneur.
>
>But it does produce the world's highest pace in innovations, both
>technical ones, and sociopolitical ones (Reaganomics, "Flat Taxes!",
>etc.) -- apparently at the cost of not giving enough education
>to the masses of people destined for so-called non-creative jobs.
This (in my opinion) is a pretty brilliant assessment. The only thing is
that I personally didn't notice quite the extreme amount of 'fun instead of
work' attitudes during my (public) high school years. It was more like: the
resources were there for those who wanted to or were willing to take on
challenges. Those of us who took Calculus, for example, didn't do it
because the Calculus class was somehow presented in some thrilling and
innovative manner, or because we just loooooved mathematics, but rather
because we came from doctor's or lawyer's or some such families, where it
was expected that we would go to college and need Calculus as a
prerequisite. In this sense I would certainly agree with the motivations
being something ingrained in one 'von Haus aus' i.e. before one has even
begun with schooling. As you say:
Rather,
>early practice in the (need I star this?) **cultural** zones of
>proximal development decides which motives will be built up, long
>before any formal schooling is allowed to set in.
But I would say that this 'elitist' or 'einstufend' character of the public
schools is due not so much to a fun-and-games attitude of naturalism as to a
lack of community involvement and concern with the quality of the schools.
Because the quality is - generally - poor. School-teaching is a profession
not as well-paid and not as well-respected in the U.S. as in Germany. Ergo,
only people who are too idiotic or too idealistic to do something else go
into teaching - unfortunately the idiots outnumber the idealists, or else
the idealists are idiotic, whatever the case may be, the quality is simply
poor. Hence the situation that is seen as so archetypically American, in
which the poor but creative and/or hard-working immigrant child can rise to
the top of his/her class through the force of sheer talent and hard work -
because rich as well as poor are at the mercy of a public school system in
which one gets - at best - only as much out of it as one puts into it. Work
hard, be brilliant, and you just might succeed. No one gets a free lunch,=
etc.=20
>You see: Texts like this one are indeed provoking.
>
>What do you think ?
>
>Arne.
Yes, provoking. My position is, in short, that 'naturalism' or
'developmentalism' is much more to be found at German universities than in
American public schools, and that what underlies the curious
American-public-school-phenomena discussed is rather the poor quality of the
school system.
What did the people on x-mca say?
Therese