5 ms·

I found the article irritating. He trisects reasons for colleges into three categories, which he sees as worthy goals, but which I paraphrase from a critical pe

by bugsy 15y ago

I found the article irritating. He trisects reasons for colleges into three categories, which he sees as worthy goals, but which I paraphrase from a critical perspective thus: 1. Society is a machine that trains worker ants for roles in production which serves the goals of the society. The efficient operation of this machine requires that intellectual knowledge workers be identified, tested, corralled into specialties with a certification which is accurate and uniform so that factories can employ known quality product cogs to place in their production lines. 2. People are stupid and lazy and do not like to learn things. College forces them to learn things so they will not be so stupid no more. 3. People need specific technical skills and training to do technical jobs from nursing to product design. Colleges need to provide uniform quality vocational training to accomplish this end. He also dismisses much of the research that shows colleges do not teach much critical thinking by suggesting that if a measurement gives a surprising result, the measurement is wrong since we know the result should be otherwise. These are the arguments of a desperate man who does not understand humans or what education is. This all said, I was fascinated and amazed that his three reasons for college match up with the criticism of educational reformers such as John Gatto, who argues that the problem with contemporary education is that it trains factory workers, performs vocational education and assumes people hate learning and must be forced to learn things when in fact people actually are built to learn and will pursue it naturally unless their spirit is crushed by institutionalized forced schooling.

jgorham 15y ago
I don't know if this is a fair recapitulation of his "argument" - the three categories you are alluding to above were more criteria he offered for how you might judge the worth of college as an institution. I'm fairly certain the author of this isn't a "desperate man who does not understand humans or what education is." That being said, people on HN are obsessed with discussing the ROI of undergraduate education when referring to the "bubble," without really discussing the role that a liberal education should play for those who aren't engineers. I think the really interesting point the author made was that professor's incentives have goes awry, as they are better off if they assign easier coursework so that they don't get docked on student reviews at the end of the term.
- bugsy 15y ago
  Did we read different articles? He doesn't make the argument about the negative side effects of linking pay and advancement to student evaluations in the article that is linked. Perhaps you are thinking of another article by the same author? I have read that argument before and it's obviously a good one, but it's not brought up in this article here.
  - gammarator 15y ago
    "Professors say that the only aspect of their teaching that matters professionally is student course evaluations, since these can figure in tenure and promotion decisions. It’s in professors’ interest, therefore, for their classes to be entertaining and their assignments not too onerous. They are not deluded: a study carried out back in the nineteen-nineties (by Alexander Astin, as it happens) found that faculty commitment to teaching is negatively correlated with compensation."
    - bugsy 15y ago
      Ah, thanks. I went back and read it two more times and didn't find it, but there it is. (For any one else looking for this excerpt, it's mentioned in passing mid-paragraph half way down page 3.)
dantheman 15y ago
For those interested you can read John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education here: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/ http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/ It's a great book, well worth the read.
hooande 15y ago
All of those statements are clearly true. Most people just want someone to give them a job and let them do it. Being told what to do by an authority figure is considerably easier than figuring out what to do on your own. College is a system of authority and assigned work, and that's a big part of why people like it. I don't think the purpose of college is to provide people with education and a love of learning. Most people don't want that. The majority of people don't like to learn things. Learning is for nerds. The purpose of college (or any form of institutionalized education) is to do all three of the things that you listed. It's a tool of our society. Changing it would only make it unappealing to the average person. People who love learning have wikipedia.
- geraldalewis 15y ago
  > Most people just want someone to give them a job and let them do it. > I don't think the purpose of college is to provide people with education and a love of learning. Most people don't want that. Your stance on this issue strikes me as one-dimensional and solipsistic. Maybe you're a very smart person who was unfairly persecuted for being different, or maybe you were persecuted for being different and placed the blame on a feature. From my perspective, humans are learning machines, as evidenced by the totality of human output. > People who love learning have wikipedia. Wikipedia does not talk to you, debate your ideas, or force you to think in uncomfortable ways (`Discussion` does not count). I might be nitpicking your point, but autodidacts are well served by interfacing with people who can challenge their ideas and also help them articulate their opinions in person. Edit: I'm getting downvoted, and I hope it's not because this comment comes across as rude. If it is, please message me directly; I tried hard on the tone.
  - davidk0101 15y ago
    Human are associating machines. Learning requires a bit more because if it didn't then the AI problem would have been solved long ago by neural nets. What schools don't do well is teach people about meta-cognition which is how all learning really happens. Anyone can memorize a few facts and regurgitate opinions but few people can connect the dots and see the big picture by collating all the local pieces of information we are constantly bombarded with.

by bugsy 15y ago

jgorham 15y ago

I don't know if this is a fair recapitulation of his "argument" - the three categories you are alluding to above were more criteria he offered for how you might judge the worth of college as an institution. I'm fairly certain the author of this isn't a "desperate man who does not understand humans or what education is." That being said, people on HN are obsessed with discussing the ROI of undergraduate education when referring to the "bubble," without really discussing the role that a liberal education should play for those who aren't engineers. I think the really interesting point the author made was that professor's incentives have goes awry, as they are better off if they assign easier coursework so that they don't get docked on student reviews at the end of the term.

bugsy 15y ago
Did we read different articles? He doesn't make the argument about the negative side effects of linking pay and advancement to student evaluations in the article that is linked. Perhaps you are thinking of another article by the same author? I have read that argument before and it's obviously a good one, but it's not brought up in this article here.
- gammarator 15y ago
  "Professors say that the only aspect of their teaching that matters professionally is student course evaluations, since these can figure in tenure and promotion decisions. It’s in professors’ interest, therefore, for their classes to be entertaining and their assignments not too onerous. They are not deluded: a study carried out back in the nineteen-nineties (by Alexander Astin, as it happens) found that faculty commitment to teaching is negatively correlated with compensation."
  - bugsy 15y ago
    Ah, thanks. I went back and read it two more times and didn't find it, but there it is. (For any one else looking for this excerpt, it's mentioned in passing mid-paragraph half way down page 3.)

dantheman 15y ago

For those interested you can read John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education here: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/ http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/ It's a great book, well worth the read.

hooande 15y ago

All of those statements are clearly true. Most people just want someone to give them a job and let them do it. Being told what to do by an authority figure is considerably easier than figuring out what to do on your own. College is a system of authority and assigned work, and that's a big part of why people like it. I don't think the purpose of college is to provide people with education and a love of learning. Most people don't want that. The majority of people don't like to learn things. Learning is for nerds. The purpose of college (or any form of institutionalized education) is to do all three of the things that you listed. It's a tool of our society. Changing it would only make it unappealing to the average person. People who love learning have wikipedia.

geraldalewis 15y ago
> Most people just want someone to give them a job and let them do it. > I don't think the purpose of college is to provide people with education and a love of learning. Most people don't want that. Your stance on this issue strikes me as one-dimensional and solipsistic. Maybe you're a very smart person who was unfairly persecuted for being different, or maybe you were persecuted for being different and placed the blame on a feature. From my perspective, humans are learning machines, as evidenced by the totality of human output. > People who love learning have wikipedia. Wikipedia does not talk to you, debate your ideas, or force you to think in uncomfortable ways (`Discussion` does not count). I might be nitpicking your point, but autodidacts are well served by interfacing with people who can challenge their ideas and also help them articulate their opinions in person. Edit: I'm getting downvoted, and I hope it's not because this comment comes across as rude. If it is, please message me directly; I tried hard on the tone.
- davidk0101 15y ago
  Human are associating machines. Learning requires a bit more because if it didn't then the AI problem would have been solved long ago by neural nets. What schools don't do well is teach people about meta-cognition which is how all learning really happens. Anyone can memorize a few facts and regurgitate opinions but few people can connect the dots and see the big picture by collating all the local pieces of information we are constantly bombarded with.