How it all comes together.
Part of me thinks I should tuck this entire entry behind a cut tag but a louder part of me screams that that's part of the problem.
My urge to post a political rant has been tempered by a recent discussion about the US educational system, and I swear I'm going to demonstrate that some combination of the two is worthy of your consideration.
This recent discussion showed that a friend of mine and I, who come from very different family and educational backgrounds, agree that there is a fundamental flaw in the American approach to education and that it exists not at it's ability to convey knowledge but in it's inability to give it's students the keys to learning.
Philosophy, scientific method, logical argument and critical thinking are the keys I refer to. The US public school system does not and has not been able to imbue even a substantial percentage of it's graduates (much less, it's drop outs) with even a rudimentary understanding of these keys perhaps since it's inception and certainly for several generations.
I know that my very limited audience are primarily exceptions to that rule (or you wouldn't be my friends) but how many of you can say you understand each and all of those key elements and not just a rote understanding of the definitions of the terms? How many of you rediscovered some of them later in life, and how many of those only came to understand other ones because of their dedication to (aptitude for) one or two?
'The three "R"s' is as flawed as it's spelling. It's usefullness does not extend beyond the sixth grade. That's about the time the european and asian school systems that so routinely beat ours in standardized tests start teaching those basics of learning to their students while we focus on teaching our students to beat standardized tests through rote learning.
Abrupt summation:
Would US citizens be so susceptible to marketing and it's evil twin, political mechanization were the ability to assess facts and draw conclusions, analise those conclusions based on the quantity and quality of data collected, compare and contrast those conclusions rationally with those of others and finally reach a tentative judgment until further data can be found while reserving the option to reconsider our conclusions should new facts, opinions or theories arise?
Or do you think we would still just do or think what had been repeated the most often in our ears while accepting or rejecting what we heard based most on what fit best with what we'd liked to hear all along?
Reality is.
MB
My urge to post a political rant has been tempered by a recent discussion about the US educational system, and I swear I'm going to demonstrate that some combination of the two is worthy of your consideration.
This recent discussion showed that a friend of mine and I, who come from very different family and educational backgrounds, agree that there is a fundamental flaw in the American approach to education and that it exists not at it's ability to convey knowledge but in it's inability to give it's students the keys to learning.
Philosophy, scientific method, logical argument and critical thinking are the keys I refer to. The US public school system does not and has not been able to imbue even a substantial percentage of it's graduates (much less, it's drop outs) with even a rudimentary understanding of these keys perhaps since it's inception and certainly for several generations.
I know that my very limited audience are primarily exceptions to that rule (or you wouldn't be my friends) but how many of you can say you understand each and all of those key elements and not just a rote understanding of the definitions of the terms? How many of you rediscovered some of them later in life, and how many of those only came to understand other ones because of their dedication to (aptitude for) one or two?
'The three "R"s' is as flawed as it's spelling. It's usefullness does not extend beyond the sixth grade. That's about the time the european and asian school systems that so routinely beat ours in standardized tests start teaching those basics of learning to their students while we focus on teaching our students to beat standardized tests through rote learning.
Abrupt summation:
Would US citizens be so susceptible to marketing and it's evil twin, political mechanization were the ability to assess facts and draw conclusions, analise those conclusions based on the quantity and quality of data collected, compare and contrast those conclusions rationally with those of others and finally reach a tentative judgment until further data can be found while reserving the option to reconsider our conclusions should new facts, opinions or theories arise?
Or do you think we would still just do or think what had been repeated the most often in our ears while accepting or rejecting what we heard based most on what fit best with what we'd liked to hear all along?
Reality is.
MB