10 ms·

Our superficial scholars

76 points by sajid 15y ago

archgoon 15y ago
Sounds more like a problem with their selection process than anything else. Rhodes scholars are by definition not representative of students. It may well be the case that people who want to be Rhodes scholars are no longer the people the committee wants to be Rhode scholars.
- iqster 15y ago
  Good point. I applied in Canada about a decade ago. I do remember they mentioned at that time that they had toned down the "excellence in athletics" category. They now merely required participation and demonstration of sportsman spirit. This struck me as quite a reasonable decision on the part of the selection committee. On a separate note, the Rhodes selection process is extremely competitive. While I didn't get in, I felt that just the process of applying forced me to self-reflect on my capabilities and accomplishments. I ended up making some positive changes in my life as a direct result of what I learned during the application process - sounds like the YC application eh? Heh Heh!
  - colincsl 15y ago
    I totally agree and think that even if these awards aren't going to the "right" people it is still a worthwhile process for all of those involved. I was nominated by my school for the Goldwater scholarship and also applied to the NSF Graduate Fellowship and found both to be incredibly worthwhile. It wasn't until I wrote (and rewrote) my Goldwater essays that I had a good grasp of what I really wanted to do with life. Sure, at that point I had been doing 'research' and other creative activities, but I had never forced myself to really self-reflect and figure out how my interests come together.
atlantic 15y ago
If this is a real problem, I would suggest reintroducing the study of philosophy right across the board. It deals precisely with all the "meta-questions" that fall outside the scope of established disciplines.
- michael_dorfman 15y ago
  Some countries (such as Norway) do precisely this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examen_philosophicum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examen_philosophicum
auganov 15y ago
As for the article itself I have similar thoughts to archgoon that it's more likely that their sample has changed rather than the actual population of students. I find it funny how whenever some problem with education is brought up there's so many people suggesting simple solutions like changes to the curriculum across the board. Each and every curriculum/educational philosophy WILL have it's problems and WILL tend to produce a certain kind of a person. Nobody denies that there's so many other countries that have better results in certain fields on standardized tests as compared to the US. But not only are those tests poor in measuring proficiency in a single subject[1], they are a complete joke if you want to use that to reflect on the education as a whole. Unified curriculum is the problem itself. Although it's not very obvious as of right now I think we'll see a HUGE decentralization in how the education works. I won't be surprised if in 20-30 years the whole primary-middle-high school system will get redefined. You can also rant about the universities in the US, but they are still the best in the world. There are no more than 5-10 universities in other countries that could compare to the top US institutions. Generally speaking I think it's a nonsense to compare average quality institutions at all. It's a contest of who is least bad. Compare the best. It's not hard for Europeans to have slightly better public education if private is very limited in it's operations. [1]The problem with international standardized tests is that the way subjects are thought differs between each country. And it happens that US schools usually have a very different approach to teaching subjects like math as compared to the rest of the world. I can easily see how those tests are skewed against the US.
- ez77 15y ago
  You can also rant about the universities in the US, but they are still the best in the world. I think you would have to elaborate on that quite a bit to make it somewhat true. Lots of foreign students, including some of the brightest, get their higher-education degrees in the US, mainly at the graduate level. That happens because a good chunk of the brightest professionals are professors at these institutions, and the research resources are plentiful. Clearly the research experience for top-level students is outstanding, both at the graduate and undergraduate levels. In this pretty narrow sense US universities are the best in the world. But… West Civ I? English Comp? College Algebra, including topics such as completing the square? Calc I derivative shortcuts? For the love of Pete, compare this kind of curriculum with what is taught in Europe, Asia and (gasp) Latin America. You will find that your average college graduate knows much less than elsewhere. Granted, the best may be future Nobel laureates, but that doesn’t hide the fact that undergraduate college education in the US has become a years-long remedial program for a disastrous K12 plan.
VladRussian 15y ago
>For most of the past 20 years I have served on selection committees for the Rhodes Scholarship. ... >The writer represented New Mexico in the U.S. House from 1997 to 2008. seems to me that the author wasn't just an innocent bystander, instead she was too active and powerful participant in shaping the society and its education to blame the end result on anybody else without acknowledging her share of responsibility.
- ericd 15y ago
  It's a bit of a stretch to say that a congresswoman is responsible for the narrowing of university curricula, as if they're central planners.
  - VladRussian 15y ago
    universities respond to society demands. She has been definitely an important player in shaping the society to demand (incl. reward higher) the highly specialized professionals with impaired critical thinking/initiative/leadership abilities. Cushy corporate or academia job vs. "not a team player" - who is to blame for such a choice posed before the youngsters? Universities? Even at the micro scale - her "blame the others" leadership approach clearly shows a leader who isn't tolerable to critical thinker and leader types even in her own staff.
Emore 15y ago
Perhaps only tangentially relevant, but as they snarkily say here in Oxford: When you graduate as a Rhodes scholar you know your best days are behind you.
DanielBMarkham 15y ago
Philosophy, rhetoric, and history. By "philosophy" I mean a broad meta study of the field: the philosophy of science, epistemology, the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of language, etc. By "rhetoric" I mean both the construction and execution of persuasive argument in printed and verbal form. Everybody should have a few folks from history that they are intimately familiar with and feel that they faced similar problem in life. Philosophy can give you a broad view of what is knowable, what is not, and how folks move from not being able to to know, to being able to know, to actually knowing -- a key component of both the advancement of science and the development of an individual. Topics like stoicism and existentialism, if presented appropriately, can provide a backstop of beliefs for any student, regardless of their religious or moral convictions. Rhetoric helps you spot when folks are trying to manipulate you, and it challenges you form coherent arguments yourself about things outside of one small area. History gives you context: every generation feels as if it is here at some kind of special and unique spot. Knowing that humans 500 years ago were the same model as the ones you meet on the street helps put your opinions and interests in context. Unfortunately, if I hadn't defined what I mean by those three subjects my recommendation would be pointless. You can go to any college today and take courses under those headings and not receive those benefits -- perhaps this is because those who design the courses view them as introductions to a deep dive on a topic and not practical, broad, benefits-based interventions with young minds. I don't know. I understand that my advice is easier said than done: how would you introduce history to a large group of students in such a way that each student found their own historical figures that they would benefit from absorbing? How do you take topics that the students might find popular and feel-good and give them the ability to tear apart the fluff around them and find the good stuff underneath? Having a professor stand up and say something like "this is my opinion on X. I may be wrong, but we'll never know unless I give you the skills to identify and refute faulty argument" just isn't happening. Instead, classrooms are hierarchical affairs. Instead of this discovery process, students get pre-canned little happy meals. Instead of taking charge of forming their own identity across multiple disciplines that they can describe and defend, we get these examples of kids simply being out of their depth once you stray just a little bit from their established path. An education that is both broad and self-determined is not an easy problem to solve. The system is not built for it.
- 15y ago
hessenwolf 15y ago
Mmmm... pretty sure Adam Smith was on the money when he talked about division of labour and increasing specialisation, in 1776.
dorian-graph 15y ago
Would a returning of a type of 'old' classical education specifically in primary and high school help?
- Daniel_Newby 15y ago
  Where would you get the teachers? The smart women who made the old system run these days work in commerce in industry.
  - kongqiu 15y ago
    Excellent point; I hadn't thought of that, and don't recall hearing it discussed in any of the "educational quality" debates.
    - Daniel_Newby 15y ago
      Teacher quality has been mentioned, often in the context of the difficulty of firing bad teachers in many U.S. school systems.
wisty 15y ago
I think that the problem is students are being taught "how to think", not "what to think". Back in the bad old days, students crammed lots of facts in into their heads. That gave them an understanding of how the world worked, how it has worked in the past, and a solid platform for thinking about how it might change. Now, students learn "how to think". Of course, nobody can teach that. So instead, they learn how to churn out 3 point essays, pretend to examine both sides of the argument, then to declare that, on the balance, the side which they gave the most air time to has more points in favor of it.
- sili 15y ago
  I think students should be tought "how to think" and not "what to think". Teaching what to think is, to some extent, brainwashing. The problem, as you pointed out, is that institutions try to teach "how to think" but fail at it.
  - rmah 15y ago
    IMO, one cannot think without a base of knowledge and facts. To attempt to think without knowledge leads to erroneous conclusions base on what feels good. The profound level of ignorance that I see sometimes in the so-called educated young people of today is bad. Worse, they often don't even realize they're ignorant. And worst of all, some even revel in it and proclaim the knowledge is irrelevant.
goldmab 15y ago
"We interview the best graduates of U.S. universities..." The best at what?
adestefan 15y ago
This is exactly the same thing the Mike Rowe article discussed, but on the other end of the spectrum. Rowe talked about how there is a lack of vocational training, while Wilson is arguing there is a lack of philosophical training. The problem stems from teaching everyone the same curriculum in US high schools. It's time the US realizes that not everyone should be learning the same things after their years of elementary/primary school.
candre717 15y ago
>>>This narrowing has resulted in a curiously unprepared and superficial pre-professionalism. I don't take these kinds of essays seriously anymore. Rhodes scholars are chosen primarily because of their accomplishments, as a result of being widely successful in a field. What the author criticizes - single-mindedness - is what catapulted these bright stars in the first place, because people, like the author, in positions of authority and influence said, "Brilliant. She is a Physics Olympiad winner or he is a nationally recognized pianist. Let us reward them." The same authors and leaders that lament the direction the nation's youths are taken have their hand in creating the very system they criticize. Why not look inward for the changes they can make rather than putting the microscope on other people? In the case of the Rhodes committee, they shouldn't even look at grades anymore. There are other ways to judge creativity and scholarship. Heavy grade focus already pushes students at top colleges into a narrow-minded pursuit of "excellence." And, yet Rhodes and other prestigious institutions reaffirm that idea. This is just an example - a rough one at that - but I hope it communicates the point. Don't pay lip service if you aren't willing to be part of the solution (and I mean taking action).
kenjackson 15y ago
This is just a right-wing attack on education, disguised as genuine critique. Heather Wilson is a right-wing politician who is making false complaints. She's running for the Senate in 2012. Lets take this line, "An outstanding biochemistry major wants to be a doctor and supports the president's health-care bill but doesn't really know why." Really? I find that amazingly hard to believe. What I suspect is far closer to the truth is that this person supports the health-care bill for a reason that isn't consistent with why Heather wants to repeal it. Here's a quote from one of her letters requesting donations for her Senate run: "Repeal and replace Obamacare with market-based reforms that are much more effective at controlling the skyrocketing cost of healthcare without compromising choice and quality;" While its important to judge writing on its merits, outside of appeals to authority. It is important to know the history and motivation of the author. Especially when the piece really has no data, and is just subjective anecdotal conjecture.
jriddycuz 15y ago
The kind of people who are inclined to think across disciplines are the same kind of people that are inclined to look at education an think, "this is bullshit." They may not know why they think this, because it takes some real experience and perspective to understand why, but they can smell the stench from miles away. Training a mind to see patterns across disparate fields also gives it an intuition for seeing what is fundamental, central and essential to a thing. This intuition leads to the realization that grades, awards, scholarships and the like are but the mere artifice of achievement. The kind of person that deserves a Rhodes scholarship according to the author's definition of what one should be is the kind of person who would be unlikely to play the game necessary to qualify for one.

76 points by sajid 15y ago

Sounds more like a problem with their selection process than anything else. Rhodes scholars are by definition not representative of students. It may well be the case that people who want to be Rhodes scholars are no longer the people the committee wants to be Rhode scholars.

iqster 15y ago
Good point. I applied in Canada about a decade ago. I do remember they mentioned at that time that they had toned down the "excellence in athletics" category. They now merely required participation and demonstration of sportsman spirit. This struck me as quite a reasonable decision on the part of the selection committee. On a separate note, the Rhodes selection process is extremely competitive. While I didn't get in, I felt that just the process of applying forced me to self-reflect on my capabilities and accomplishments. I ended up making some positive changes in my life as a direct result of what I learned during the application process - sounds like the YC application eh? Heh Heh!
- colincsl 15y ago
  I totally agree and think that even if these awards aren't going to the "right" people it is still a worthwhile process for all of those involved. I was nominated by my school for the Goldwater scholarship and also applied to the NSF Graduate Fellowship and found both to be incredibly worthwhile. It wasn't until I wrote (and rewrote) my Goldwater essays that I had a good grasp of what I really wanted to do with life. Sure, at that point I had been doing 'research' and other creative activities, but I had never forced myself to really self-reflect and figure out how my interests come together.

atlantic 15y ago

If this is a real problem, I would suggest reintroducing the study of philosophy right across the board. It deals precisely with all the "meta-questions" that fall outside the scope of established disciplines.

michael_dorfman 15y ago
Some countries (such as Norway) do precisely this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examen_philosophicum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examen_philosophicum

auganov 15y ago

As for the article itself I have similar thoughts to archgoon that it's more likely that their sample has changed rather than the actual population of students. I find it funny how whenever some problem with education is brought up there's so many people suggesting simple solutions like changes to the curriculum across the board. Each and every curriculum/educational philosophy WILL have it's problems and WILL tend to produce a certain kind of a person. Nobody denies that there's so many other countries that have better results in certain fields on standardized tests as compared to the US. But not only are those tests poor in measuring proficiency in a single subject[1], they are a complete joke if you want to use that to reflect on the education as a whole. Unified curriculum is the problem itself. Although it's not very obvious as of right now I think we'll see a HUGE decentralization in how the education works. I won't be surprised if in 20-30 years the whole primary-middle-high school system will get redefined. You can also rant about the universities in the US, but they are still the best in the world. There are no more than 5-10 universities in other countries that could compare to the top US institutions. Generally speaking I think it's a nonsense to compare average quality institutions at all. It's a contest of who is least bad. Compare the best. It's not hard for Europeans to have slightly better public education if private is very limited in it's operations. [1]The problem with international standardized tests is that the way subjects are thought differs between each country. And it happens that US schools usually have a very different approach to teaching subjects like math as compared to the rest of the world. I can easily see how those tests are skewed against the US.

ez77 15y ago
You can also rant about the universities in the US, but they are still the best in the world. I think you would have to elaborate on that quite a bit to make it somewhat true. Lots of foreign students, including some of the brightest, get their higher-education degrees in the US, mainly at the graduate level. That happens because a good chunk of the brightest professionals are professors at these institutions, and the research resources are plentiful. Clearly the research experience for top-level students is outstanding, both at the graduate and undergraduate levels. In this pretty narrow sense US universities are the best in the world. But… West Civ I? English Comp? College Algebra, including topics such as completing the square? Calc I derivative shortcuts? For the love of Pete, compare this kind of curriculum with what is taught in Europe, Asia and (gasp) Latin America. You will find that your average college graduate knows much less than elsewhere. Granted, the best may be future Nobel laureates, but that doesn’t hide the fact that undergraduate college education in the US has become a years-long remedial program for a disastrous K12 plan.

VladRussian 15y ago

>For most of the past 20 years I have served on selection committees for the Rhodes Scholarship. ... >The writer represented New Mexico in the U.S. House from 1997 to 2008. seems to me that the author wasn't just an innocent bystander, instead she was too active and powerful participant in shaping the society and its education to blame the end result on anybody else without acknowledging her share of responsibility.

ericd 15y ago
It's a bit of a stretch to say that a congresswoman is responsible for the narrowing of university curricula, as if they're central planners.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  universities respond to society demands. She has been definitely an important player in shaping the society to demand (incl. reward higher) the highly specialized professionals with impaired critical thinking/initiative/leadership abilities. Cushy corporate or academia job vs. "not a team player" - who is to blame for such a choice posed before the youngsters? Universities? Even at the micro scale - her "blame the others" leadership approach clearly shows a leader who isn't tolerable to critical thinker and leader types even in her own staff.

Emore 15y ago

Perhaps only tangentially relevant, but as they snarkily say here in Oxford: When you graduate as a Rhodes scholar you know your best days are behind you.

DanielBMarkham 15y ago

Philosophy, rhetoric, and history. By "philosophy" I mean a broad meta study of the field: the philosophy of science, epistemology, the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of language, etc. By "rhetoric" I mean both the construction and execution of persuasive argument in printed and verbal form. Everybody should have a few folks from history that they are intimately familiar with and feel that they faced similar problem in life. Philosophy can give you a broad view of what is knowable, what is not, and how folks move from not being able to to know, to being able to know, to actually knowing -- a key component of both the advancement of science and the development of an individual. Topics like stoicism and existentialism, if presented appropriately, can provide a backstop of beliefs for any student, regardless of their religious or moral convictions. Rhetoric helps you spot when folks are trying to manipulate you, and it challenges you form coherent arguments yourself about things outside of one small area. History gives you context: every generation feels as if it is here at some kind of special and unique spot. Knowing that humans 500 years ago were the same model as the ones you meet on the street helps put your opinions and interests in context. Unfortunately, if I hadn't defined what I mean by those three subjects my recommendation would be pointless. You can go to any college today and take courses under those headings and not receive those benefits -- perhaps this is because those who design the courses view them as introductions to a deep dive on a topic and not practical, broad, benefits-based interventions with young minds. I don't know. I understand that my advice is easier said than done: how would you introduce history to a large group of students in such a way that each student found their own historical figures that they would benefit from absorbing? How do you take topics that the students might find popular and feel-good and give them the ability to tear apart the fluff around them and find the good stuff underneath? Having a professor stand up and say something like "this is my opinion on X. I may be wrong, but we'll never know unless I give you the skills to identify and refute faulty argument" just isn't happening. Instead, classrooms are hierarchical affairs. Instead of this discovery process, students get pre-canned little happy meals. Instead of taking charge of forming their own identity across multiple disciplines that they can describe and defend, we get these examples of kids simply being out of their depth once you stray just a little bit from their established path. An education that is both broad and self-determined is not an easy problem to solve. The system is not built for it.

15y ago

hessenwolf 15y ago

Mmmm... pretty sure Adam Smith was on the money when he talked about division of labour and increasing specialisation, in 1776.

dorian-graph 15y ago

Would a returning of a type of 'old' classical education specifically in primary and high school help?

Daniel_Newby 15y ago
Where would you get the teachers? The smart women who made the old system run these days work in commerce in industry.
- kongqiu 15y ago
  Excellent point; I hadn't thought of that, and don't recall hearing it discussed in any of the "educational quality" debates.
  - Daniel_Newby 15y ago
    Teacher quality has been mentioned, often in the context of the difficulty of firing bad teachers in many U.S. school systems.

wisty 15y ago

I think that the problem is students are being taught "how to think", not "what to think". Back in the bad old days, students crammed lots of facts in into their heads. That gave them an understanding of how the world worked, how it has worked in the past, and a solid platform for thinking about how it might change. Now, students learn "how to think". Of course, nobody can teach that. So instead, they learn how to churn out 3 point essays, pretend to examine both sides of the argument, then to declare that, on the balance, the side which they gave the most air time to has more points in favor of it.

sili 15y ago
I think students should be tought "how to think" and not "what to think". Teaching what to think is, to some extent, brainwashing. The problem, as you pointed out, is that institutions try to teach "how to think" but fail at it.
- rmah 15y ago
  IMO, one cannot think without a base of knowledge and facts. To attempt to think without knowledge leads to erroneous conclusions base on what feels good. The profound level of ignorance that I see sometimes in the so-called educated young people of today is bad. Worse, they often don't even realize they're ignorant. And worst of all, some even revel in it and proclaim the knowledge is irrelevant.

goldmab 15y ago

"We interview the best graduates of U.S. universities..." The best at what?

adestefan 15y ago

This is exactly the same thing the Mike Rowe article discussed, but on the other end of the spectrum. Rowe talked about how there is a lack of vocational training, while Wilson is arguing there is a lack of philosophical training. The problem stems from teaching everyone the same curriculum in US high schools. It's time the US realizes that not everyone should be learning the same things after their years of elementary/primary school.

candre717 15y ago

>>>This narrowing has resulted in a curiously unprepared and superficial pre-professionalism. I don't take these kinds of essays seriously anymore. Rhodes scholars are chosen primarily because of their accomplishments, as a result of being widely successful in a field. What the author criticizes - single-mindedness - is what catapulted these bright stars in the first place, because people, like the author, in positions of authority and influence said, "Brilliant. She is a Physics Olympiad winner or he is a nationally recognized pianist. Let us reward them." The same authors and leaders that lament the direction the nation's youths are taken have their hand in creating the very system they criticize. Why not look inward for the changes they can make rather than putting the microscope on other people? In the case of the Rhodes committee, they shouldn't even look at grades anymore. There are other ways to judge creativity and scholarship. Heavy grade focus already pushes students at top colleges into a narrow-minded pursuit of "excellence." And, yet Rhodes and other prestigious institutions reaffirm that idea. This is just an example - a rough one at that - but I hope it communicates the point. Don't pay lip service if you aren't willing to be part of the solution (and I mean taking action).

kenjackson 15y ago

This is just a right-wing attack on education, disguised as genuine critique. Heather Wilson is a right-wing politician who is making false complaints. She's running for the Senate in 2012. Lets take this line, "An outstanding biochemistry major wants to be a doctor and supports the president's health-care bill but doesn't really know why." Really? I find that amazingly hard to believe. What I suspect is far closer to the truth is that this person supports the health-care bill for a reason that isn't consistent with why Heather wants to repeal it. Here's a quote from one of her letters requesting donations for her Senate run: "Repeal and replace Obamacare with market-based reforms that are much more effective at controlling the skyrocketing cost of healthcare without compromising choice and quality;" While its important to judge writing on its merits, outside of appeals to authority. It is important to know the history and motivation of the author. Especially when the piece really has no data, and is just subjective anecdotal conjecture.

jriddycuz 15y ago

The kind of people who are inclined to think across disciplines are the same kind of people that are inclined to look at education an think, "this is bullshit." They may not know why they think this, because it takes some real experience and perspective to understand why, but they can smell the stench from miles away. Training a mind to see patterns across disparate fields also gives it an intuition for seeing what is fundamental, central and essential to a thing. This intuition leads to the realization that grades, awards, scholarships and the like are but the mere artifice of achievement. The kind of person that deserves a Rhodes scholarship according to the author's definition of what one should be is the kind of person who would be unlikely to play the game necessary to qualify for one.