And then there was that second issue I was angry about.
I noticed a number of posts on another board, where high school kids often ask for homework help, asking for help understanding their assigned reading. It seemed they almost never asked for help understanding MacBeth's motivations. Nothing about Hamlet's ambivalence. Nothing about Jane Austen's sarcasm and social satire. The questions this Fall semester seemed to center almost exclusively on three titles: The Great Gatsby, Lord of the Flies, and Catcher in the Rye, to Kill a Mockingbird.
I'll grant that these are fine titles, not particularly bad to assign for reading; but why must the assigned books be these books so often? I was annoyed, so I asked the forum if the teachers couldn't think of anything else to assign, expecting the teachers to see, or the students to state that there were other options they'd enjoy.
Well, the first few posts came from student who agreed that yes, they had been assigned little else, some of them admitting they had been assigned the same book two or three times, and yes, wouldn't it be nice if they got something else? (No other titles were suggested, though.)
Then the teachers caught the thread. I expected their anger; one might even say I provoked them by asking the question in a way that would challenge them to defend their narrow choices.
The first few began with, "It's not as simple as you're making it out to be." Not quite, I hadn't "made it out to be" anything. I had simply asked a question. It's not so simple, they said; teachers are given a list of permissible books, one probably made up at the state level by some committee on education.
So were they going to claim that the list has only four books on it? Of course they're not, but this still doesn't answer the question of why the same few titles are assigned over and over and over.
I had suggested there was a need for kids to read the classics as well, as other kinds of reading will expand their horizons; and I said that I considered a book like "Catcher in the Rye", since it's all about being an alienated teenager, to be nothing but an exercise in navel-gazing.
I was belittled for suggesting that horizons should be expanded. What in the world is wrong with thinking the students' horizons should be expanded? Why sit in school all those years?
The last one raged at me, "What do you want them to assign, Stephanie Meyer? Yuk!"
*blink, blink* Where in the world did that come from?
I have seen worse argumentation. In fact I see worse argumentation all the time. But you'd think that someone who prides himself on being an academic would have more pride than that. And please note that not one person addressed my question, other than to belittle me for asking it.
I hope the people responding to that question are proud of themselves.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
So What's an Education For, Anyway?
Okay, this morning I really have my nose out of joint.
I asked a bunch of people what they saw as the purpose or intent of "education". I actually had to mull over this post before I could write it; the answers I got upset me.
"To prepare you for life" was one of the two main answers.
Whatever that means. In my experience people with no education can do okay at "life".
I know people who dropped out of school, mentally, around third grade. They knew they were only in school to obey the demands of the state. School was something intended to keep them from enjoying themselves until they were eighteen, and once they became adults the state would no longer have power over them and they would be free to do as they chose.
They're the ones who don't own a book, don't subscribe to any newspaper or magazine, have never applied for any library card. Most actually have a political view--that their side is the good side, and the other side is full of evil people who should be pushed off a cliff. But that's about as deep as they've ever examined any issues, and they gravitated toward their current political view because of its underlying assumption that if you're a good person, this is the correct side to be on. Well, at least they don't vote.
Their intellectual lives go no farther than getting drunk every Saturday night, plus once or twice a year they'll see a movie. The jobs they go into tend to be meaningless as far as their interests go. Often they just work until the bills are paid and they're fed up with the boredom at the workplace, at which time they'll quit, and after a few months of unemployment they'll look for another job. You'd be inclined to think most of them dull-witted but some are actually fairly intelligent.
The second popular answer was, "So you can get a better job."
Well sure, you need skills if you're going to be a wage slave. Your employers would like to have secretaries who can type a coherent letter, service people who can correctly fill out a purchase order. Even our college grads sometimes can't fill out a time sheet without screwing it up. And as it happens, most employers report that they're having to train the new hires because the schools didn't.
Sure, every school should have a metal shop, a car mechanics shop, a cooking class, an art class with graphics or CAD focus. Get rid of that old literature crud; you can't make a living off that, unless you teach. History is old and past and irrelevant to "your future life". We want the next generation to be prepared to repair our air conditioners and install new flooring.
I guess the concept of "education" as developing a higher mental function is dead and gone, except among a select few.
I asked a bunch of people what they saw as the purpose or intent of "education". I actually had to mull over this post before I could write it; the answers I got upset me.
"To prepare you for life" was one of the two main answers.
Whatever that means. In my experience people with no education can do okay at "life".
I know people who dropped out of school, mentally, around third grade. They knew they were only in school to obey the demands of the state. School was something intended to keep them from enjoying themselves until they were eighteen, and once they became adults the state would no longer have power over them and they would be free to do as they chose.
They're the ones who don't own a book, don't subscribe to any newspaper or magazine, have never applied for any library card. Most actually have a political view--that their side is the good side, and the other side is full of evil people who should be pushed off a cliff. But that's about as deep as they've ever examined any issues, and they gravitated toward their current political view because of its underlying assumption that if you're a good person, this is the correct side to be on. Well, at least they don't vote.
Their intellectual lives go no farther than getting drunk every Saturday night, plus once or twice a year they'll see a movie. The jobs they go into tend to be meaningless as far as their interests go. Often they just work until the bills are paid and they're fed up with the boredom at the workplace, at which time they'll quit, and after a few months of unemployment they'll look for another job. You'd be inclined to think most of them dull-witted but some are actually fairly intelligent.
The second popular answer was, "So you can get a better job."
Well sure, you need skills if you're going to be a wage slave. Your employers would like to have secretaries who can type a coherent letter, service people who can correctly fill out a purchase order. Even our college grads sometimes can't fill out a time sheet without screwing it up. And as it happens, most employers report that they're having to train the new hires because the schools didn't.
Sure, every school should have a metal shop, a car mechanics shop, a cooking class, an art class with graphics or CAD focus. Get rid of that old literature crud; you can't make a living off that, unless you teach. History is old and past and irrelevant to "your future life". We want the next generation to be prepared to repair our air conditioners and install new flooring.
I guess the concept of "education" as developing a higher mental function is dead and gone, except among a select few.
Monday, November 16, 2009
While we're on the subject of definitions
While we're on the subject of definitions, let me air one of my favorite gripes, the difference between prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries.
English is a language without a ruling Committee (The General Commission, I think). If you attempt to add a word to the French language, you might arouse the ire of The Committee and have your choice of words anathematized. Okay, that's being harsh. They might have issued a statement declaring the word unmutual and suggested a proper substitute that good Frenchmen ought to have used.
We have no such authority. Long ago we brought in words we stole from other languages (usually when they invaded) and then made them our own. Once they were ours, we had our way with them. "Ha! take that, word! you no longer represent a talisman but you are a character quality!"
If you are not acquainted with the OED, you should run, not walk, to their website (http://www.oed.com/) and introduce yourself. It is a huge work that took decades to compile and the publishers (Oxford University Press) are putting out updates all the time. You can subscribe but at twenty huge, hardbound volumes, the subscription is expensive ($295 per year) so you might consider purchasing the thing. Most families can't afford that and don't have the room for the twenty volumes so you might consider purchasing the compact version, two volumes slipcased with a magnifying glass included. At the very least you can look at it in your local public library.
Or you can do the sensible thing and get it on disk for your computer. At about $35 it's a bargain.
Here's what it is: If you look up a word you'll find it defined, and under the definition will be a number of sentences or partial sentences arranged chronologically from earliest to most recent that contain that word. These sentences were pulled from English writings and usually show by context what the writer meant in the use of that word. To me it's fun to see how the word changed spelling and meaning over the centuries since the word first appeared in writing. Some words didn't change, and that's fun too.
So the OED is a descriptive dictionary. It describes how the word is used by a lot of people.
There are dictionaries that do what your grammar school teacher tried to do, tell you that a certain word does and ought to mean. A "bicycle" is not a "dog", and regardless of how many people choose to make the mistake of saying "bicycle" when a furry mammal wags its tail at them and barks for Kibbles and Bits, it will never be "correct". That has a lot to do with the origin of the word, which was coined in 1868 by a fellow who stole two word parts from Greek and felt very scholarly because of it. Greek "bi-" is "two" and then add Greek "kyklos" for "wheel or circle". Dogs do not have two wheels unless a high-priced vet rigs them up in a pair.
Who cares? What's the big deal? Yes, that is the attitude a descriptive dictionary takes: If enough people make the same mistake (and call that furry mammal a "bicycle") then we'll just report it as "that's what it is."
How could you and I ever communicate that way? You'd say you lost your bicycle and ask me to help you look for it, and I would be utterly useless in the search because I'd be looking for something completely different from the thing you had lost.
That's where descriptive dictionaries come in.
The descriptive dictionary will tell you how the word OUGHT to be used, regardless how many people misuse it or substitute some other, similar-sounding word. And the way our society is so badly undereducated, mistaken usages or word confusion will still happen at a high rate. But the true champions of our language, the prescriptive dictionaries, will bear the standard before us and keep our eyes on the proper use of our poor, abused language. Bicycles, at least for a few more years, are not to be suspected of growing fur.
English is a language without a ruling Committee (The General Commission, I think). If you attempt to add a word to the French language, you might arouse the ire of The Committee and have your choice of words anathematized. Okay, that's being harsh. They might have issued a statement declaring the word unmutual and suggested a proper substitute that good Frenchmen ought to have used.
We have no such authority. Long ago we brought in words we stole from other languages (usually when they invaded) and then made them our own. Once they were ours, we had our way with them. "Ha! take that, word! you no longer represent a talisman but you are a character quality!"
If you are not acquainted with the OED, you should run, not walk, to their website (http://www.oed.com/) and introduce yourself. It is a huge work that took decades to compile and the publishers (Oxford University Press) are putting out updates all the time. You can subscribe but at twenty huge, hardbound volumes, the subscription is expensive ($295 per year) so you might consider purchasing the thing. Most families can't afford that and don't have the room for the twenty volumes so you might consider purchasing the compact version, two volumes slipcased with a magnifying glass included. At the very least you can look at it in your local public library.
Or you can do the sensible thing and get it on disk for your computer. At about $35 it's a bargain.
Here's what it is: If you look up a word you'll find it defined, and under the definition will be a number of sentences or partial sentences arranged chronologically from earliest to most recent that contain that word. These sentences were pulled from English writings and usually show by context what the writer meant in the use of that word. To me it's fun to see how the word changed spelling and meaning over the centuries since the word first appeared in writing. Some words didn't change, and that's fun too.
So the OED is a descriptive dictionary. It describes how the word is used by a lot of people.
There are dictionaries that do what your grammar school teacher tried to do, tell you that a certain word does and ought to mean. A "bicycle" is not a "dog", and regardless of how many people choose to make the mistake of saying "bicycle" when a furry mammal wags its tail at them and barks for Kibbles and Bits, it will never be "correct". That has a lot to do with the origin of the word, which was coined in 1868 by a fellow who stole two word parts from Greek and felt very scholarly because of it. Greek "bi-" is "two" and then add Greek "kyklos" for "wheel or circle". Dogs do not have two wheels unless a high-priced vet rigs them up in a pair.
Who cares? What's the big deal? Yes, that is the attitude a descriptive dictionary takes: If enough people make the same mistake (and call that furry mammal a "bicycle") then we'll just report it as "that's what it is."
How could you and I ever communicate that way? You'd say you lost your bicycle and ask me to help you look for it, and I would be utterly useless in the search because I'd be looking for something completely different from the thing you had lost.
That's where descriptive dictionaries come in.
The descriptive dictionary will tell you how the word OUGHT to be used, regardless how many people misuse it or substitute some other, similar-sounding word. And the way our society is so badly undereducated, mistaken usages or word confusion will still happen at a high rate. But the true champions of our language, the prescriptive dictionaries, will bear the standard before us and keep our eyes on the proper use of our poor, abused language. Bicycles, at least for a few more years, are not to be suspected of growing fur.
Monday, November 9, 2009
So, What Do We Mean By "Education"?
While I was busy not posting because I of several real-life emergencies and other things, I decided where to narrow my subject down to one approachable topic. Thus I figured a good first step would be to define "Education"-- what do we mean with that word?
Here's the dictionary definition:
1. the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life.
2. the act or process of imparting or acquiring particular knowledge or skills, as for a profession.
3. a degree, level, or kind of schooling: a university education.
4. the result produced by instruction, training, or study: to show one's education.
5. the science or art of teaching; pedagogics.
Going from the bottom up, we have first, the art of teaching. Well, that's the wrong area.
Nes, the result produced by instruction, training, or study. Okay, so some people want to show their education. Still, what's that?
Next, another circular definition in "the kind of schooling" and its result.
Moving right along, the act or process of imparting or acquiring particular knowledge or skills, as for a profession. Okay, this is closer to what I was looking for. We're going to do what, and call it education? Stuff you with knowledge or skills... for a job or profession.
I hate that definition. I can read a training manual and I don't consider myself educated when I get done with it. I may be trained, or I may have all the facts I need to babble erudite phrases in some "discipline" (a loathesome word but some professors think it makes them sound more professional) though I don't necessarily understand my subject or have anything worthy to say about it.
I went from bottom to top so I could argue against definitions 2 through 5. That's because I think definition 1 is the closest to what I would say. Phrase by phrase:
Imparting knowledge: yes, because it seems self-evident that you need some facts and information about things to think about them clearly. How do you know a certain thing is correct if you haven't looked at the opposing things? However, it is NOT self-evident to many people that you need to know ANYTHING. These are the folk who argue that "it's not what you know but knowing where to look it up." I will address this in a future post. I will only say here that I think it's fatuously naive, something that people learn to parrot without actually considering how wise it is.
Developing the powers of reasoning and judgement. Okay, this one is my favorite. My generation went to chic, expensive liberal arts colleges and did drugs. In their drug-inspired state they came up with brilliant things to say, like "Tear down the walls" and "schools should teach students how to think, not what to think." And they promptly demanded their colleges and universities replace the old "how to think" curriculum with "what to think" propaganda. More on this later.
Generally preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life. This itself is such a huge subject I think I'll have to leave it for another day.
Here's the dictionary definition:
1. the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life.
2. the act or process of imparting or acquiring particular knowledge or skills, as for a profession.
3. a degree, level, or kind of schooling: a university education.
4. the result produced by instruction, training, or study: to show one's education.
5. the science or art of teaching; pedagogics.
Going from the bottom up, we have first, the art of teaching. Well, that's the wrong area.
Nes, the result produced by instruction, training, or study. Okay, so some people want to show their education. Still, what's that?
Next, another circular definition in "the kind of schooling" and its result.
Moving right along, the act or process of imparting or acquiring particular knowledge or skills, as for a profession. Okay, this is closer to what I was looking for. We're going to do what, and call it education? Stuff you with knowledge or skills... for a job or profession.
I hate that definition. I can read a training manual and I don't consider myself educated when I get done with it. I may be trained, or I may have all the facts I need to babble erudite phrases in some "discipline" (a loathesome word but some professors think it makes them sound more professional) though I don't necessarily understand my subject or have anything worthy to say about it.
I went from bottom to top so I could argue against definitions 2 through 5. That's because I think definition 1 is the closest to what I would say. Phrase by phrase:
Imparting knowledge: yes, because it seems self-evident that you need some facts and information about things to think about them clearly. How do you know a certain thing is correct if you haven't looked at the opposing things? However, it is NOT self-evident to many people that you need to know ANYTHING. These are the folk who argue that "it's not what you know but knowing where to look it up." I will address this in a future post. I will only say here that I think it's fatuously naive, something that people learn to parrot without actually considering how wise it is.
Developing the powers of reasoning and judgement. Okay, this one is my favorite. My generation went to chic, expensive liberal arts colleges and did drugs. In their drug-inspired state they came up with brilliant things to say, like "Tear down the walls" and "schools should teach students how to think, not what to think." And they promptly demanded their colleges and universities replace the old "how to think" curriculum with "what to think" propaganda. More on this later.
Generally preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life. This itself is such a huge subject I think I'll have to leave it for another day.
Monday, October 19, 2009
So you went to school ...
You went through school. You tried to be a good student; you did your work and you learned your lessons. The pace was painfully slow because every time there was new information, someone didn't get it, and the teacher had to make everyone else wait while she explained the information again to the slow kid.
If you were among the more recent crop of students (students who entered school since the early Eighties), you spent a lot of time in school "breaking up into work groups" where you and a few other students were given a problem to solve or a question to answer. There was always one kid in the group--probably you--who already knew the answer, or grasped the concepts in the lesson while still moving chairs to the work group. This kid was always expected to teach the lesson to the others.
Homework usually meant doing again what you learned earlier in school. Maybe you understood the need for drilling the ideas because repetition often means understanding something more fully, but mostly you found it annoying and felt it intruded on what you wished could have been your free time.
You were bored to death. Hardly ever did anything seem to challenge your mind or offer you any reason to like being in this daytime prison.
Just what was school here for, anyway?
If you were among the more recent crop of students (students who entered school since the early Eighties), you spent a lot of time in school "breaking up into work groups" where you and a few other students were given a problem to solve or a question to answer. There was always one kid in the group--probably you--who already knew the answer, or grasped the concepts in the lesson while still moving chairs to the work group. This kid was always expected to teach the lesson to the others.
Homework usually meant doing again what you learned earlier in school. Maybe you understood the need for drilling the ideas because repetition often means understanding something more fully, but mostly you found it annoying and felt it intruded on what you wished could have been your free time.
You were bored to death. Hardly ever did anything seem to challenge your mind or offer you any reason to like being in this daytime prison.
Just what was school here for, anyway?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)