4 ms·

A lot of interesting bits. This bit made me think as well: > The factory system doesn't work in the modern world, because two years after graduation, whatever

by Nition 7y ago

A lot of interesting bits. This bit made me think as well: > The factory system doesn't work in the modern world, because two years after graduation, whatever you learned is out of date. We need education spread over a lifetime, not jammed into the early years—except for such basics as reading, writing, and perhaps citizenship. Past puberty, education needs to be combined in interesting and creative ways with work. The factory school system no longer makes sense.

p1esk 7y ago
two years after graduation, whatever you learned is out of date This also does not make sense to me. I can't think about anything I learned in college (mechanical engineering) in mid 90s that is obsolete today. For example, we used to do engineering drawings by hand. It's an amazing skill - kind of like learning how to program in assembly. It's an enlightening experience - once you mastered it, learning tools like SolidWorks (or Python for programming) is a breeze. Similarly, nothing you learned in college as a CS major 30 years ago would be obsolete today. Most algorithms and data structures already existed and haven't changed much. Programming in C is still (arguably) the best way to learn how program a computer if you want to understand what's going on under the hood. If you learn about OSes, databases, networking, compilers, computer architecture etc by studying specific examples from 1989 you would learn 90% of what you need to succeed as a software engineer today.
- tremon 7y ago
  So you learned tools, not facts. AIUI, the major criticism of the US "factory schooling" (I'm from the EU btw, so it's only hearsay) is that you're considered "done" once you leave school, and never have to acquire new facts again. Both your education and mine (electrical engineering) focused on the means of acquiring and communicating knowledge (reading comprehension, critical thinking, technical writing), not on rote memorization. That basis sets you up for a lifetime of adaptability through discovery and learning. If you're never learned how to assimilate new knowledge, you're going to have a hard time staying relevant in a rapidly-changing society.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    So leaning about Ohms law hasn't changed in the last century has it
Nasrudith 7y ago
The work switching is nontrivial in costs and arrangement. There is some inherent in a "research what you need for your occupation" but it is specialized and divergent over time. So while plumbers may learn to work with sonar robodrones once they come out and become the norm or doctors with nanoprobes if things advance the foundation often atrophies to not in fact being smarter than a 5th Grader. I am not sure how well it can be combined with work given that it is extrinsic to its many varied purposes that are already an incentives and strategic mess. The "best" way to enforce learning when it is fundamentally misalligned would involve a bueracratic gatekeeping hell sure to spark rebellion both overt and covert. Good luck in China let alone a liberal democracy. A less foregone dystopian way would be to subsidize general learning but even that would have opportunity and systemic costs that would limit uptake without obvious payback.

by Nition 7y ago

p1esk 7y ago

two years after graduation, whatever you learned is out of date This also does not make sense to me. I can't think about anything I learned in college (mechanical engineering) in mid 90s that is obsolete today. For example, we used to do engineering drawings by hand. It's an amazing skill - kind of like learning how to program in assembly. It's an enlightening experience - once you mastered it, learning tools like SolidWorks (or Python for programming) is a breeze. Similarly, nothing you learned in college as a CS major 30 years ago would be obsolete today. Most algorithms and data structures already existed and haven't changed much. Programming in C is still (arguably) the best way to learn how program a computer if you want to understand what's going on under the hood. If you learn about OSes, databases, networking, compilers, computer architecture etc by studying specific examples from 1989 you would learn 90% of what you need to succeed as a software engineer today.

tremon 7y ago
So you learned tools, not facts. AIUI, the major criticism of the US "factory schooling" (I'm from the EU btw, so it's only hearsay) is that you're considered "done" once you leave school, and never have to acquire new facts again. Both your education and mine (electrical engineering) focused on the means of acquiring and communicating knowledge (reading comprehension, critical thinking, technical writing), not on rote memorization. That basis sets you up for a lifetime of adaptability through discovery and learning. If you're never learned how to assimilate new knowledge, you're going to have a hard time staying relevant in a rapidly-changing society.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  So leaning about Ohms law hasn't changed in the last century has it

Nasrudith 7y ago

The work switching is nontrivial in costs and arrangement. There is some inherent in a "research what you need for your occupation" but it is specialized and divergent over time. So while plumbers may learn to work with sonar robodrones once they come out and become the norm or doctors with nanoprobes if things advance the foundation often atrophies to not in fact being smarter than a 5th Grader. I am not sure how well it can be combined with work given that it is extrinsic to its many varied purposes that are already an incentives and strategic mess. The "best" way to enforce learning when it is fundamentally misalligned would involve a bueracratic gatekeeping hell sure to spark rebellion both overt and covert. Good luck in China let alone a liberal democracy. A less foregone dystopian way would be to subsidize general learning but even that would have opportunity and systemic costs that would limit uptake without obvious payback.