I've had some comments stewing over this topic and for a change I've
barely kept up with the postings. I think Bruce Robinson is right now
when he writes:
>One point too often forgotten is that the objects of this education, the
>students, are rarely given any choice about how they are taught or what
>facilities are provided for them.
However, I think the blame must be evenly distributed for this. As
educators, we are clearly part of the problem.
You can't go wrong bashing Capitalism on this list, but I think that
education has really failed to serve the legitimate needs of society.
Quick example from information technologies. The number of graduates
with expertise in this field as actually fallen slightly this past
decade. The number of servers on the Internet is increasing
exponentially. Face it - we have what amounts to an ignorance epidemic.
We all pay for this, particularly in the area of network security. Yet
the response of the educational establishment to this crisis is misguided
and hopelessly inadequate. In the department where I work, we are
growing at healthy linear rate. The bureaucracy is happy, we have a few
more employees. However, we aren't doubling the number of courses or
even the number of sections. The need couldn't be more obvious - why
can't education respond?
My other beef with the current thread is a misguided faith that
"educators know what students need." That is certainly the job of
education, but we all know that the academe is charged mainly with the
preservation of knowledge - not "equipping of the soul" for modern life.
To me, the best example of such misdirected efforts is the push for more
Math and Science in K-12. The relationship between Web page design and
Math is about as strong as the relationship between Latin and English.
The vast majority of people will not end up doing work that directly taps
either Science or Math. Yet, the same misguided analogies seem to recur.
We speak a lot about a "liberal arts education," but is there really any
evidence that "liberally educated" people: vote better?, are better
consumers?, have better relationships?, live happier lives? . . . ????
I hate to point the finger back at the Ivory Tower, but much of this talk
sounds like whitewash for Academia defending its turf. There is
certainly nothing wrong with that, but Academia cannot play "Holier than
thou." Like it or not, academia is only one of society's many "mouths to
feed." Alas, the process by which mouths are fed can hardly pass for
high reason - indeed it often seems to be little more than random.
Peace, Edouard
============================================
Edouard Lagache, PhD
Webmaster - Lecturer
Information Technologies
U.C. San Diego, Division of Extended Studies
Voice: (619) 622-5758, FAX: (619) 622-5742
email: elagache who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
:...................................................................:
: Weinberg's Second Law: :
: If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote :
: programs, the first woodpecker that came along would :
: destroy civilization. :
. - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - .