Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1098
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 12:29 pm: |    |
091111
LET’S RE-VISIT “EDUCATION”
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Cincinnati, OH
I really think we need to re-visit education from the beginning to the end [of former schooling that is!] How did it get so darn complicated and involved? Tell me there isn’t still a need for RWR-- readin’, writin’ and ‘arithmetic? We now have college graduates [including athletics] who can’t read-- maybe that’s why they don’t understand what a contract is and means! We have people who drive like the devil, but barely pass the written test-- if at all.
We have people pretending to be doctors-- now there is dumb on both sides of that! We have college curricula where you can trace a list of course through, get a degree and have almost meaningless education [the proverbial, basket weaving, intramural sports administration, psychology of inter-fruit fly relations, etc.] But no RWR—give me a break! Might look also at relevance, level of knowledge, clearer end results, and applicable information!
We have some students who take advanced courses, but are miserable failures socially. We have some so distractible that frat life, etc., overtakes and overwhelms them and “college” takes on an entirely different meaning [besides who pays their way?- dumb on 2 sides there too].
And the schools don’t come by any kudos either. We want to educate the whole person! Whoa! that’s great, BUT what will they be capable of doing after? We teach-- we don’t train students for their professions! What? How do you establish any valid criteria that makes that work except the dumbing down of you intent? OH, we only teach to a ____________ level, and not to the full extent! Then who does? And what is that level for doctors, lawyers, engineers and architects? How do you teach part of the work of a profession and not other parts? Oh, we leave that training [technical] to the employers! OK! Now do the employers understand that? Is the degree granted asterisked to note the shortchanged work? Oh, and do the employers buy into this? Many larger employers actually take college graduates and re-train them to make them functional in the relevant field of study—BUT every employer is not attuned to be capable of doing this-- i.e., some folks simply have to work and produce!
Now online degrees are all the vogue. Before the financial debacle, students came to perceive that working on-line is easier and less demanding that in-house college instruction—less effort, don’t have to dress for class, do class work whenever you choose, etc.. Some aspects [cost, housing, etc.] is understandable, but just how equal are the resulting degrees to those provided through most extensive and far more demanding “resident” education? Would you utilize a doctor trained, online? There may be a place for some disciplines and some classes, but others surely require far more than distant instruction can provide-- and the personal interfacing is invaluable!
The United States is falling shamelessly short of the education achievement of other countries—why? Don’t we care anymore? Something over 55% of all teachers have a Masters-- so why is the instructional work of these folks, in all too many cases, so lax? In a society where a plumber can come by higher income than a full professor, we need to look around. What are our values? Trade workers need not be demeaned for their skill and effort, but surely neither should college professors, who see fit to work correctly and informatively--and teach despite tenure, be penalized. No radicals here, just plain good teaching of good values, and proper direction!!
Money is the common denominator in all this. But how about this-- allocate money to assist students with education but demand/require that their education meet established [and not watered-down] standards along with teaching standards. Bad educational results and/or bad teaching, no funding!! BUT we also have to get academics off their high horses and get them to educate in a manner that both educates in general, but also to specific professional goals and standards-- and then stick to them. We need to look at the whole student and not how we can, 1] move ’em on with minimum effort and low skills, 2] get the most money out of or for them, and 3] dismiss responsibility at any level and on any one’s part for failure. We need a new expansive educational perspective, top to bottom!
Oh, I would think this also applies to instruction on construction specifications, too! |
4specs.com Home Page