Comments on: Are we really dumber?

By: Lee Hamilton

Lee Hamilton — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:54:11 +0000

The purpose of education has changed radically. That’s because who is doing the learning, and who is paying for and administering it, has also changed over time. This shift is the result of a number of factors, including what’s called the “massification” of higher learning (Arturo mentions the GI Bill – we had something similar here in Canada), the growing role of professional associations in the quality assurance function determining university and college curricula, and the expansion of the regulatory role of government into the education sphere.

Ask a college administrator or a public policy maker and they’ll tell you that the purpose of learning is to maximize labour market participation and unit productivity. Eyes are riveted on international indicators, and the policy emphasis is on evidence-based decision-making based on econometric data to justify resource allocation. If that sounds pretty dry, that’s because it is. It’s a “decapitated” process – no consideration of the more fundamental non-economic, non-quantifiable function of education…such as the creation of a common culture, the perfection of the soul or any such intangibles. It’s about increasing the value-added productivity of your labour force in established and emerging global value chains. That’s why the university as an institution has been changing so radically.

By: Leah

Leah — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:01:01 +0000

There is confusion about what the purpose of education should be, which seems to have been a question ever since the days of Socrates. Learning for the sake of learning? To learn a trade? Good citizenship? How to be a good member of whatever religious group you happen to be affliated with? To learn how to take standardized tests? These questions were less important when only a few people received structured education. Now that everyone is expected to receive quality education (however that may be defined), the question of what makes an educated person is more confusing. Being smart, however, is not the same thing as being cultured or educated. Many innovators in the field of computer science, such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, are not what we would considered cultured, but are quite brilliant at what they do. Much is made in current educational and scientific policy about making America more competitive in basic science and technology, but not so much interest is being invested in whether Americans produce quality art, literature, or music.

By: Visibilium

Visibilium — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:38:34 +0000

Scy, that’s an interesting topic, and I look forward to seeing your thoughts. I’m often amused by our age-old inclination to associate the well-born with virtue. Now, well-born can mean either old-monied in the capitalistic sense or aristocratic in the medieval sense.

Lee, maybe all we’re grappling with is a lack of discipline. I hear that the Marines can cure attention deficits.

By: Lee Hamilton

Lee Hamilton — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:00:08 +0000

Oops – I intended to mention Allan Bloom (“The Closing of the American Mind”) alongside Jacobs and Berman in my post above. How could I forget. The first time I read Bloom, I was totally captivated by what he had to say about all this.

By: Lee Hamilton

Lee Hamilton — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:56:43 +0000

I’m a bit of a pessimist – I think we’re undergoing a slow-motion cultural collapse à la Jane Jacobs (“the Dark Age Ahead”) and Morris Berman (“The Twilight of American Culture” and “Dark Ages America”). As for the generational thing, I think the problem extends well beyond a breakdown in knowledge transfer. Information is being acquired, stored, accessed and applied in such radically different ways that (the scientists tell us) the neurological architecture of the brain itself is adapting, and that the mental development of the “digital generation” is radically different from what has occurred before. It’s further argued (by some) that these differences necessitate changes in the format and content of pedagogy system-wide in order to maintain the relevance and effectiveness of curricula and accomplish the socio-economic objectives of education (narrowly understood). Obviously, this has some fairly far-reaching implications, and it’s something a lot of universities, colleges and policy makers are grappling with right now. Here’s an interesting article I came across that discusses some of the science that is being brought into the debate, focusing an the celebrated workplace skill of “multitasking” but which is just as applicable to the hyper-stimulated “attention deficit” digitized environment which young people are now growing up in:

“The Myth of Multitasking”
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-myth-of-multitasking

By: The Scylding

The Scylding — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:11:39 +0000

Arturo, your post touches on something I am planning to write on in the (hopefully near) future – on our confusion of the terms educated, civilised, wise, cultured, class, etc. combined with issues of nobility, equality etc. I’ll let you know when I do so….

By: Apolonio

Apolonio — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:14:41 +0000

Arturo,

The purpose of education is to open man to all of reality (J. Jungman). Education, then, must propose a life, a worldview, which makes man receptive to reality. In our technological age, we are filled with information but lack no depth. That seems to be the reason why people are dumb. It is not so much with intelligence but lack of attentiveness. Technology gives the impression that reality is neutral and hence, there is no realization of the world as it is (a gift). It is not simply that our stupidity are now shown through technology when back then it was not. The way we see reality is simply different. Just think of how we think of the world, God, tools, work, etc. It’s different. So it seems to me that the problem is 1) education and 2) technology. Both have to do with the personal character by the way.

By: Arturo Vasquez

Arturo Vasquez — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:18:29 +0000

Apolonio,

Yes, that may be true, but it is completely off-topic, since what is being discussed here is education in itself, not street-smarts or personal character.

By: Apolonio

Apolonio — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:53:25 +0000

Art,

For Bernanos, imbecile meant those who are mentally weak, those who lack the child-like, marian, receptive attitude to reality.

By: athanasius

athanasius — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 13:34:53 +0000

Essentially, college has become a finishing school for the well-to do, something that one needs to gain an entry-level white collar job,

Not always, I have two degrees and I am a manager at Walmart.