4 ms·

I taught after-school programming in a large city and got the opportunity to ask a lot of ed insiders why they don't teach more 'skills' rather than 'subjects'.

I taught after-school programming in a large city and got the opportunity to ask a lot of ed insiders why they don't teach more 'skills' rather than 'subjects'. People usually answered 'we don't want to sacrifice general problem solving skills'. (This is what I would say if I were getting paid to do something with no measurable output). Some said 'Vocational school is perceived as not getting you into college', which is true but bad. The missing third answer is 'there's no system for bringing people with fresh job skills into schools'. There's a great atlantic article about swimming lessons vs math lessons that said 'at the end of the exercise if you can't swim something is wrong'. The bulk of education by $ value in the US doesn't have a deliverable. (Not so for sports and music). I've seen research which claims that parental involvement is a significant factor in the quality of public schools (though this is hard to separate from real estate prices or any other proxy for wealth/education). Maybe the right way to add a 'deliverable' to education is to treat parents as the consumer instead of students or testing authorities.

jawns 10y ago
Yet general problem solving skills are extremely important (which is why a lot of employers test for them during the interview). And the nice thing about them is that if you're a good problem solver, you can apply that to a lot of different careers. Whereas teaching a specific set of skills (e.g. pipe welding) may make you a great pipe welder, but guess what happens when you decide to change careers. So I'd characterize the trade-off as: - Focusing on general problem solving skills (assuming they can be taught) opens a lot of doors, but doesn't get you very far inside any one door. - Focusing on trade skills opens a far more limited set of doors, but can get you farther inside the door you choose to enter. What makes the trade-off extra tricky is that it's possible general problem solving skills cannot be taught, in the same way a high IQ cannot be taught. And, as you point out, it's much trickier to measure problem solving capacity than it is to measure whether a pipe was welded correctly.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Now the question is does our education system actually help create good problem solvers or would more metrics and accountability for teachers improve matters?
- awinter-py 10y ago
  General problem-solving happens when you draw from all your skills because you have a problem with no obvious answer. Every new thing you learn adds to your ability to solve 'general problems'. Teaching specific skills doesn't take away from someone's general ability -- it improves it. Smart people can master skills and information in a hurry, but people are only effective if they've used their time to master a lot of skills. Can we improve G? If yes, you'll still improve someone's general effectiveness more by teaching them lots of skills than by improving their IQ 5 points.
- Inconel 10y ago
  I agree with what you've said but I would add that as someone who works in the trades, and who knows quite a few welders who run the gamut from barely competent to "great", one attribute that all of the ones I would classify as great have in common, in addition to very high technical welding skill, is general problem solving ability. I think many people, somewhat unfairly, view the path towards gaining trade skills as a case of simply showing up to work or class, going through the motions of practicing your specific skill, and after some period of time you simply become a master at your profession. Now, doing the aforementioned will probably get you to the competent level, but to be great at something like welding requires quite a bit of general problem solving ability in addition technical skill. This is doubly true for those who end up starting their own businesses. I know a few welders/machinists who are working on their own now. The vast majority don't come from monied backgrounds and have a hard time raising startup capital so they end up doing things on a shoestring budget. The ones I know end up having to become at least mildly knowledgable in accounting, taxes, business regulations and things like fire code and labor laws, business contracts and sometimes even the local commercial/industrial real estate market. They do these things because they don't have the capital to hire others to do them. Despite in most cases having nothing more than a high school diploma, or some community college coursework, I would definitely say they excel at general problem solving.

jawns 10y ago

Yet general problem solving skills are extremely important (which is why a lot of employers test for them during the interview). And the nice thing about them is that if you're a good problem solver, you can apply that to a lot of different careers. Whereas teaching a specific set of skills (e.g. pipe welding) may make you a great pipe welder, but guess what happens when you decide to change careers. So I'd characterize the trade-off as: - Focusing on general problem solving skills (assuming they can be taught) opens a lot of doors, but doesn't get you very far inside any one door. - Focusing on trade skills opens a far more limited set of doors, but can get you farther inside the door you choose to enter. What makes the trade-off extra tricky is that it's possible general problem solving skills cannot be taught, in the same way a high IQ cannot be taught. And, as you point out, it's much trickier to measure problem solving capacity than it is to measure whether a pipe was welded correctly.

cmdrfred 10y ago
Now the question is does our education system actually help create good problem solvers or would more metrics and accountability for teachers improve matters?
awinter-py 10y ago
General problem-solving happens when you draw from all your skills because you have a problem with no obvious answer. Every new thing you learn adds to your ability to solve 'general problems'. Teaching specific skills doesn't take away from someone's general ability -- it improves it. Smart people can master skills and information in a hurry, but people are only effective if they've used their time to master a lot of skills. Can we improve G? If yes, you'll still improve someone's general effectiveness more by teaching them lots of skills than by improving their IQ 5 points.
Inconel 10y ago
I agree with what you've said but I would add that as someone who works in the trades, and who knows quite a few welders who run the gamut from barely competent to "great", one attribute that all of the ones I would classify as great have in common, in addition to very high technical welding skill, is general problem solving ability. I think many people, somewhat unfairly, view the path towards gaining trade skills as a case of simply showing up to work or class, going through the motions of practicing your specific skill, and after some period of time you simply become a master at your profession. Now, doing the aforementioned will probably get you to the competent level, but to be great at something like welding requires quite a bit of general problem solving ability in addition technical skill. This is doubly true for those who end up starting their own businesses. I know a few welders/machinists who are working on their own now. The vast majority don't come from monied backgrounds and have a hard time raising startup capital so they end up doing things on a shoestring budget. The ones I know end up having to become at least mildly knowledgable in accounting, taxes, business regulations and things like fire code and labor laws, business contracts and sometimes even the local commercial/industrial real estate market. They do these things because they don't have the capital to hire others to do them. Despite in most cases having nothing more than a high school diploma, or some community college coursework, I would definitely say they excel at general problem solving.