4 ms·
Well, he is right. The education system I went through was designed around a myth of what the corporate landscape supposedly looks like and it's out of date in
by barnaby 17y ago
Well, he is right. The education system I went through was designed around a myth of what the corporate landscape supposedly looks like and it's out of date in the information age. I don't know that I'd go so far as to call "anything that asks you to uproot your relationships with place and with people as evil" nor would I return to an agricultural model.
It's worth reading.
- jerf 17y agoI don't think by "agricultural model" people mean "move out to the farms" or anything; I think he means more that the values of self-reliance in matters educational is what he is pushing. A bunch of city kids could adopt the "agricultural model" with no contradiction. Personally, I think it's a bad moniker; it makes it sound like a step backward and invites misunderstanding. We need a network-age education that takes advantage of the things we had that never existed in agricultural times; it may happen to resemble the agricultural model in some ways, but it will still resemble the industrial in others, and in other ways won't resemble either. (Incidentally, this is why I want to homeschool my kid(s). I want to give them the 21st century education they can't get anywhere else right now. Maybe their children won't find it so hard.)
- barnaby 17y ago"agricultural" is a bad moniker for sure. Still, a model that emphasizes growing ties to your location is a poor one. David Weinberger hit the nail on the head in his philosophical arguments in "Small pieces loosely joined" that our understanding of "place" has completely changed in the information age. Perhaps the author should have focused on an education system that focuses on ties to _community_ rather than on the place their from?
- jcromartie 17y agoThe agricultural model is one of regional self reliance, where cheap consumer goods aren't shipped in from places where people work for a very few of your society's dollars. When you keep things local, the standard of living rises for everybody and you get a more egalitarian society. Shuffling people and resources around usually ends up widening inequality gaps among different classes and different geographic locations.