Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1291
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - 08:05 am: |    |
120125
LET’S RE-VISIT “EDUCATION”
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT, 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 readin’, writin’ and ‘arithmetic? We now have college graduates [including athletes] who can’t read-- maybe that’s why they don’t understand what a contract 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 courses through, get a degree and have almost a meaningless education [the proverbial, basket weaving, intramural sports administration, psychology of inter-fruit fly relations, etc. But RWR—give me a break.]
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 deserve 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 criterion that makes that work except the dumbing down of your 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? [How do train product representatives using half or less of available product information?] “Oh, we leave that training to the employers!” OK! Now do the employers understand that? Is the degree granted asterisked to note the shortchanged academic work? Oh, and do the employers buy into this?
Many larger employers, out of necessity, actually take college graduates and re-train them to make them functional in the relevant field of study—BUT every employer is not capable of doing this-- i.e., some folks simply have to work and produce!
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 skilled construction trade worker can earn a higher income than a full PhD 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 and teach, [despite tenure] be penalized. As well as their students!
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 path of pure theory 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 educational perspective, top to bottom!
Part of this may well lie in professional organizations like CSI, which have a unique and deep expertise and the capacity to pass it along to appropriately involved students. Obviously, we can’t change the entire system, but we can provide some help and insight for new professionals, coming along, to avoid further degradation of the system and documents. Why not? We can provide the fundamentals, the practicality, the experience and the basic motivation for production of quality products. Action by similar organizations affects the entire industry and assists all levels and types of activities to the good of all. If we can teach specs, and have other, related resources available already, can we not also teach drawings and documentation overall? No one else seems interested in this, which, if it still ignored, will plague good construction documentation concept, fundamentals and deliverables. If not? Not the brightest of futures! |
4specs.com Home Page