education
It's been a while since I've done an old-fashioned linkdump. All of these are articles or posts that I wanted to respond to but never found the time to, and yet had stuck in my bookmarks.
- an interview in Fast Company with John Taylor Gatto about teaching and homeschooling
- three articles by Dave Pollard: ackwnowledging that he's an intense person, arguing that blogs haven't really filled a real need yet, and un-interviews
- an argument for no more advertisements in video games, which I think I found looking for arguments about how video games are the new music distribution channel
- Derek Miller wants more active voice in news broadcasts, and I agree: I bet if you did a content analysis of just one BCTV newscast, you'd find enough passive voice to write a blog post about
- I read Why Newspapers Matter, Danger to Human Dignity: the Revival of Disgust and Shame in the Law, The Gentle Art of Selling Yourself, Why Americans hate Paris Hilton, Marketing to Introverts and the Gentle Art of Saying No long enough ago to forget what they said
- William Safire on addressing people in written correspondence. How I address people depends on how close I am to them. I'm cheerier to customers and usually address them by name the first time they send in an email. But generally, the closer I am, the less likely I'm going to address them by name.
Reading Doc and AKMA on an article in The New York Times on home schooling (called "unschooling" in the article, which sounds like people could think it means "uneducating", but is instead meant to distinguish from the the traditional or status quo, much like the word "unconference"), I find similarities with arguments like those of John Taylor Gatto. Gatto writes in his essay—not mentioned in the article, perhaps because it's outside even the home schooling mainstream?—that traditional schools only teach confusion, class position, indifference, emotional and intellectual dependency, conditional self-esteem, and surveillance—compelling, if checked by the fact that my sister, an elementary school teacher, loves her job and her students, and whom I believe is a good teacher loved by her students and their parents.
Both Doc (and Julie, whom I thought of immediately reading Doc's piece linked at the top) are familiar with Gatto, which would lead me to guess that Gatto's omission from the New York Times article, its embarrassing correction and all, is puzzling (because of his influence on homeschoolers) or explainable (ditto). My research on the subject consists only of stumbling on links, since I'm childless (my plans for the foreseeable future—May 2007, if you must know—assume that continues). Always in the back of my 28-year-old mind, however, is the question "how would I educate my child(ren)", and while I can't make a decision now, among the values and personality traits I'd like to instill, or would like their teachers and mentors to instill in them would include love, strength, playfulness, seriousness, intelligence, athleticism, grace, and above all, curiosity.
That, in the hope that they will learn from the mistakes of their father, a regular sleep schedule.
Some views on the cost of university education from Britain:
- Conservative British MP Michael Howard: “we believe that entry to university should be based on ability to learn, not ability to pay. If you are good enough to go to university, financial concerns should not hold you back.”
- Essex University Professor Anthony King: “Pressure to be research-active combined with the pressure that arises from a doubling of student numbers results in a powerful downward pressure on the time and energy universities can devote to teaching. There is no alternative.”
Martin Ertl: “in the case of universities there is a compelling case to be made that in fact spending on universities is actually an investment for the government. That's to say that there is actually a return on the spending that the public provides to universities. That return comes in the form of additional tax dollars from graduates, who are higher-income earners as a result of their higher education, and it comes from the economic value that's created by the research, and that improves the standard of living for British Columbians.”
This is along the same lines as Robert C. Allen, who argues that alumni pay the full cost of their education [PDF] even if it's subsidized by the government through the higher taxes they pay because of the higher earnings they earn as university graduates.
Elliott Cohen: “As an unemployed 24-year-old psychology major graduate with two additional diplomas, let me be the first to tell you that this reality of 'work' after school could not be further from the truth. Being unable to find work in my field, I have started looking for unrelated work just to survive.”
I was reading this letter to the editor (Vancouver Sun) while sipping on my orange juice this morning. I'm an under-employed Political Science graduate, so I know a little bit about what he's talking about.
“I want every reader to know that no amount of education prepares students with work skills or for work itself. A word of advice: Before enrolling in a post secondary institution, consider whether the time, effort and money are really worth it.”
I have a little problem with that paragraph. The first sentence is a little hard to believe (no amount of education?), and the second seems a little overly cautious. I enjoyed university because of the new ideas and the interesting people. It's only really worth it if you have the time and money (which I did), but if you do, I would highly recommend any type of higher education, just for the person you become because of it.