Tweet
A few thoughts on which I wanted opinions.
First, on the purpose of education in a society. As far as I am aware, the classical world-view regarding education can be summed up as follows:
The world is complex and cruel.
We as humans have two sources of power when dealing with the world - tradition and reason.
The power of tradition comes from a long process of the perfecting of systems that work (the distilled wisdom of the past).
The power of reason comes from the fact that the world, though complex, still follows rules, and that those rules are often comprehensible.
Neither is sufficient on its own - tradition without reason cannot sustain itself, and reason without tradition has no foundation upon which to build.
Humans are, if left to themselves, pretty barbaric in nature.
The ideal of civilisation is a harmonious amalgam of these tradition and reason - a people who can accept change yet be at peace with themselves.
Therefore, the purpose of education is to do two things - to pass on the traditions of the civilisation to the new generations, and to develop within them the ability to reason about their condition, so that they are not slaves to the past. The idea is to give the young both roots and wings.
Once, education was reserved for an elite. Generally, it was a hereditary elite. The religious orders and medieval unversities did to their part in making it more egalitarian, but it was still pretty much the province of civilisation-specific elites (aristocracies in Europe, the three higher castes in India, the wealthy in other parts of the world, and so on). One reason was that it was thought that the vast majority of people were incapable of being educated. The second was that education was power, and nobody willingly gives up control over the ultimate source of power.
The modern, more egalitarian vision of education sees in it the same imperative - the passage of civilisation and culture to the young - but it assumes that everybody it seeks to educate is capable of becoming a model human being - that education is capable of counteracting many innate tendencies which are undesirable, such as xenophobia, or racism, or other things of this nature.
I have a doubt in this regard. After reading extensively about the evolution of human nature, the social structures for which our brains are wired, and the role of nature versus nurture in personhood, I've come to the (rather disheartening) conclusion that the concept of universal education is utopian and that its goals are forever unachievable. Much as I wish that this were not so - who wouldn't want to live in a society of civil-minded, cultured, enlightened, and otherwise good people? - I'm forced to accept it because the analysis tilts in its favour.
In fact, I go a step further, and conclude that any attempt to impose a standard - any standard, no matter how mild - on all of humanity is bound to fail, and fail badly.
But my concern here is quite different. I am worried that, trying to "bring education to the masses" or to "democratise" education, we may be ruining the educational tradition itself. I don't really know much about about the school system of the USA, but I've heard a fair bit about it. What follows is based purely on what I hear from the US media.
As far as I can make out, the pressures of "democratisation" are slowly but surely pushing education towards the lowest common denominator of achievement, and as of yet, we have no idea where that lies - the decline shows no signs of bottoming out. I see this in the Indian school curriculum, too, though to a slightly lesser extent.
I became interested in this issue after borrowing a book from the Bhaskaracharya Pratisthan's library of mathematical books. It was by Steven Krantz, titled "How to Teach Mathematics". The appendices contained a number of insightful opinions from a number of contemporary teachers of mathematics, and almost all of them were critical of the current direction in which mathematics education was heading. Essentially, they were saying that "Johnny can't pass basic algebra, so let's dumb it down" wasn't a viable solution to the problem of declining abilities.
But isn't the problem broader than merely mathematics? There will always be people who will be deficient in some area of endeavour, be it mathematics or something else. Generally, mathematics tends to amplify the problem, as it's the one subject where there is absolutely zero subjectivity involved. Now, to accommodate these deficient people, the standards will tend to slowly but surely creep downwards, because otherwise, the "inclusiveness" goal of the "democratised" educational scheme will be lost.
The problem as I see it is that any attempt to truly bring education to the masses will succeed - but only by rendering education itself something fit for the masses. Elitist though that may sound, I'm afraid that it is, as far as I can make out, the bitter truth.
So how should we deal with this problem? Should we re-institute the classical tradition for everyone - that you can take whatever you want, but that there will be absolutely no compromise on standards, and that if little Johnny has to repeat a grade four times before he passes or drops out, so be it? Or should we "stream" education into different ability grades, so that people get an education they are suited for? Or should we stream education, but allow anyone to take any stream, and maintain standards - so that people who aren't suitable for a given level will fail repeatedly, get the message, and change streams downwards? Tough as these choices may seem, they seem to be to me to be the only way of stemming the inevitable degradation of educational standards and the stopping of the destruction of the educational tradition itself.
Opinions?
First, on the purpose of education in a society. As far as I am aware, the classical world-view regarding education can be summed up as follows:
The world is complex and cruel.
We as humans have two sources of power when dealing with the world - tradition and reason.
The power of tradition comes from a long process of the perfecting of systems that work (the distilled wisdom of the past).
The power of reason comes from the fact that the world, though complex, still follows rules, and that those rules are often comprehensible.
Neither is sufficient on its own - tradition without reason cannot sustain itself, and reason without tradition has no foundation upon which to build.
Humans are, if left to themselves, pretty barbaric in nature.
The ideal of civilisation is a harmonious amalgam of these tradition and reason - a people who can accept change yet be at peace with themselves.
Therefore, the purpose of education is to do two things - to pass on the traditions of the civilisation to the new generations, and to develop within them the ability to reason about their condition, so that they are not slaves to the past. The idea is to give the young both roots and wings.
Once, education was reserved for an elite. Generally, it was a hereditary elite. The religious orders and medieval unversities did to their part in making it more egalitarian, but it was still pretty much the province of civilisation-specific elites (aristocracies in Europe, the three higher castes in India, the wealthy in other parts of the world, and so on). One reason was that it was thought that the vast majority of people were incapable of being educated. The second was that education was power, and nobody willingly gives up control over the ultimate source of power.
The modern, more egalitarian vision of education sees in it the same imperative - the passage of civilisation and culture to the young - but it assumes that everybody it seeks to educate is capable of becoming a model human being - that education is capable of counteracting many innate tendencies which are undesirable, such as xenophobia, or racism, or other things of this nature.
I have a doubt in this regard. After reading extensively about the evolution of human nature, the social structures for which our brains are wired, and the role of nature versus nurture in personhood, I've come to the (rather disheartening) conclusion that the concept of universal education is utopian and that its goals are forever unachievable. Much as I wish that this were not so - who wouldn't want to live in a society of civil-minded, cultured, enlightened, and otherwise good people? - I'm forced to accept it because the analysis tilts in its favour.
In fact, I go a step further, and conclude that any attempt to impose a standard - any standard, no matter how mild - on all of humanity is bound to fail, and fail badly.
But my concern here is quite different. I am worried that, trying to "bring education to the masses" or to "democratise" education, we may be ruining the educational tradition itself. I don't really know much about about the school system of the USA, but I've heard a fair bit about it. What follows is based purely on what I hear from the US media.
As far as I can make out, the pressures of "democratisation" are slowly but surely pushing education towards the lowest common denominator of achievement, and as of yet, we have no idea where that lies - the decline shows no signs of bottoming out. I see this in the Indian school curriculum, too, though to a slightly lesser extent.
I became interested in this issue after borrowing a book from the Bhaskaracharya Pratisthan's library of mathematical books. It was by Steven Krantz, titled "How to Teach Mathematics". The appendices contained a number of insightful opinions from a number of contemporary teachers of mathematics, and almost all of them were critical of the current direction in which mathematics education was heading. Essentially, they were saying that "Johnny can't pass basic algebra, so let's dumb it down" wasn't a viable solution to the problem of declining abilities.
But isn't the problem broader than merely mathematics? There will always be people who will be deficient in some area of endeavour, be it mathematics or something else. Generally, mathematics tends to amplify the problem, as it's the one subject where there is absolutely zero subjectivity involved. Now, to accommodate these deficient people, the standards will tend to slowly but surely creep downwards, because otherwise, the "inclusiveness" goal of the "democratised" educational scheme will be lost.
The problem as I see it is that any attempt to truly bring education to the masses will succeed - but only by rendering education itself something fit for the masses. Elitist though that may sound, I'm afraid that it is, as far as I can make out, the bitter truth.
So how should we deal with this problem? Should we re-institute the classical tradition for everyone - that you can take whatever you want, but that there will be absolutely no compromise on standards, and that if little Johnny has to repeat a grade four times before he passes or drops out, so be it? Or should we "stream" education into different ability grades, so that people get an education they are suited for? Or should we stream education, but allow anyone to take any stream, and maintain standards - so that people who aren't suitable for a given level will fail repeatedly, get the message, and change streams downwards? Tough as these choices may seem, they seem to be to me to be the only way of stemming the inevitable degradation of educational standards and the stopping of the destruction of the educational tradition itself.
Opinions?
). Or that a modern economy doesn't work without a certain base of reasonably educated work force. 
Comment