Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!bralick
From: bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Education
Message-ID: <1989Dec21.061052.3721@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 89 06:10:52 GMT
References: <1989Dec19.053905.11104@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> <7492@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Organization: Self Similar
Lines: 143

In article <7492@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>From bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick):
>> If you just want to
>> make money, then, with a high school diploma and sufficient drive
>> and determination, one's future is made.
>
>   This is an extremely high-risk strategy with a low probability of
>   succeeding, and hence constitutes a red herring.  Try again.

I disagree.  You state that bored students drop out of school and sell
drugs.  Do you mean to imply that selling drugs (something that
you contend these students are willing to do) is less risky than
selling, uh, real estate?  This is no red herring, you are trying to 
avoid the issue that the students might lack the drive and determination
to make a legal buck, opting instead for the fast, big money of drug
trafficking due to greed, impatience, etc.  The inability to delay
gratification is not a sign of maturity.

>...
>
>   People in the ghetto are good for being anything they want to be;

Unless they want to become an historian, a writer, etc.

>   however, one of the most important things they want to be is less
>   poverty-stricken.  Wasting their time and money on history and
>   literature does not realistically address their needs.

You have a unidimensional view of education.  Education is not
just for training workers, but also (and more importantly) for
producing a mature adult citizen capable of understanding the
issues which confront his nation -- an informed electorate, and 
an adult who has been provided with the necessary tools for pursuing
a lifetime of learning.  These two goals you seem to reject out of
hand allowing only that students should be bred to some trade.

>> If the quality of one's life is measured in dollars and cents,
>> then it really is rather worthless, isn't it?  A better life 
>> could also consist of being able to appreciate better literature,
>
>   Sure, once there exists a state of financial well-being.  Notice
>   that the highest levels of interest in the humanities have existed
>   in conditions within which people perceive themselves as rich.  The
>   Athenians were able to sit around philosophizing because they had
>   enslaved enough other people to make themselves rich.

So the ancient Athenians sat around philosophizing, eh?  I agree that 
there must be sufficient leisure for a meaningful pursuit of the
arts and humanities, but I think that a leisure class is also 
prone to Epicureanism (sitting around pleasing oneself).  I don't
perceive myself to be rich, but, the leisure time that I have, I
use to pursue the humanities, etc.  I think that our new leisure
class, bred to a trade and provided with no intellectual tools for
appreciating the arts and humanities, etc. would more likely turn
to hedonistic pursuits than devote their time to literature, history,
etc.

>   humanities.  Clearly this is far from the case as far as ghetto dwellers
>   are concerned; to present something other than a fast track to financial
>   success to ghetto-dwellers constitutes tremendous insensitivity toward
>   education users, as well as a massive waste of educational resources.

Please define the "fast track to financial success."  How much, how fast,
and what percentage of the population of "ghetto dwellers" will accept
that as being _both_ a) fast enough, and b) successful enough?

Now you say:

>   Hey, can you read?  The above does NOT say that the educational 
>   system causes poverty; it says instead that the educational system 
>   is instrumental in its perpetuation.        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then you said:

>>>   Education is the mechanism for financial upward mobility in our
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>   society, but many users find this to be a ridiculous suggestion
      ~~~~~~~
>>>   given the extent to which effort is directed toward things which 

So, which is it?  Does it perpetuate poverty or provide financial
upward mobility?

>> 
>> Gee, don't our wise students understand that the median income of 
>> college graduates is higher than the median income of non-college
>> graduates?  Even those college graduates who have to read actual
>> _books_ in college that they (and you'll find this hard to believe)
>> don't actually want to read!  Isn't this _reality_ enough to 
>> convince even the most intransigent of our students that they
>> should do something that they might not actually _like_ so that
>> they might benefit in the long term?
>
>   Few understand this, since the educational system does not bother
>   to produce rationales for the structure of its coursework, much less
>   see to it that students understand that rationale.

What?  Our mature, rational students -- people who can design their own
curriculum -- cannot figure out the rationale for the courses that are
currently offered?  This doesn't strike you as at all inconsistent?

>   As far as students
>   are concerned, they are attending specific classes because they will
>   be imprisoned for failing to do so, because these classes are required,
>   and so on.

So these students who can design their own curriculum cannot seem 
to generalize the process to understand the design of the current
curriculum?  These are the people who you'd have in charge of 
their own education -- people who cannot understand why they need
to take Algebra, or who won't take it because it is "hard?"

>   Of those who do understand, many judge the amount of bullshit
>   involved to be greater than they are willing to tolerate, and opt instead
>   for the sale and/or consumption of drugs.

Any excuse will do, neh?  One wonders just how much "irrelevancy" they
would be willing to tolerate.  Can you say epsilon?

>   Education must respond meaningfully to the context in which it is to
>   be consumed.  I submit that if a person feels the need to take the fast
>   track to professional employment,
             ~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am sure you mean just employment, since the term "professional" implies
a certain amount of education (including ethics which you probably file
under "BS").

>   the educational system should not stand
>   in that person's way.  If that person later becomes filthy rich and starts
>   to wonder about humanities courses and the meaning of life, then the system
>   should be ready to serve then as well.

Meaning that none but the "filthy rich" (an interesting turn of phrase
for somebody who is apparently motivated solely by money) can have an
interest in the humanities?  


-- 
Will Bralick                          |  ... when princes think more of
     bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu       |  luxury than of arms, they lose
     bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu        |  their state.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |             - Niccolo Machiavelli