Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ogicse!emory!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Education
Message-ID: <7514@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 89 21:26:28 GMT
References: <1989Dec21.061052.3721@cs.psu.edu>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 104

From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick):
> 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?  

   Selling real estate, considering that one is living in the ghetto,
   is not likely to be an exceptionally profitable means of existence.
   Selling drugs is risky (somewhat), but the rewards are very high
   (thousands of dollars per week).  Hence the risk/reward ratio is 
   considerably more favorable.
   
> 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 problem is that even if they do have the drive and determination,
   there is enough irrelevant bullshit to go through to make them think
   twice about the "legal" route.  As a consequence people become drug
   dealers rather than going into the various professions they would 
   naturally have chosen in the absence of unnecessary barriers.   

>>   People in the ghetto are good for being anything they want to be;
> 
> Unless they want to become an historian, a writer, etc.
 
   That's fine, too; anyone who wants to do this should be free to
   do it, using a program which sends them straight into their field
   of choice.  This differs sharply from the Bralick method, in which
   everyone must study lots of BS which is irrelevant to their interests,
   whatever those interests might be.
   
> 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.

   I advocate ensuring that students are able to search the literature
   in their fields in order to solve practical problems, and that a
   system of continuing education be set up in order to provide lifelong
   learning; this process should document continuing education in a way
   which is as portable among employers as university degrees are today.
 
   There are many means of becoming politically informed which do not 
   involve required nonproductive topics -- reading the newspapers is 
   one of the best means of preparing to vote upon the topics of the day.

> 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.

   Obviously you consider literature, history, and the like to provide
   pleasure to you as a user; mechanisms exist (word of mouth, commercial
   promotion, etc.) by which things which give pleasure are propagated
   to the widest possible audience.  Thus, what you appear to be afraid
   of is the possibility that literature, history, and such cannot compete
   effectively for the minds of people in a free and open market.

> Please define the "fast track to financial success."  

   A program which will provide comprehensive professional training
   in the profession of the user's choice, which is minimal with
   respect to time required and with respect to cost of training.

   Comprehensive coverage specifically includes preparation for
   a lifetime of continuing education within that profession, and
   knowledge of how to go about preparing for an alternate profession
   if this is ever desired.
 
> So, which is it?  Does [education] perpetuate poverty or provide 
> financial upward mobility?

   Both; for a user who possesses the extraordinary motivation to
   overcome the mountains of bullshit, it provides upward mobility.

   For the user who justifiably asks why it is necessary to sit 
   through that amount of foul-smelling material, it provides only
   barriers of bullshit which serve to perpetuate poverty. 
   
> What?  Our mature, rational students -- people who can design their own
> curriculum -- cannot figure out the rationale for the courses that are
> currently offered?  

   The idea is to design minimal curricula which target the user-chosen
   professional objective, justifying them solely in terms of that specific
   objective.  Users are then free to select any optional courses desired,
   including history and literature if that trips their triggers.

   I ask only that we set up such a system and let it freely compete 
   with the "traditional" bullshit-laden system; the free market will 
   provide conclusive evidence of what is best.  


   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu