Does education prevent success?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Here's a quick CNN article and video about Sir Ken Robinson:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/17/ted.ken.robinson/index.html?hpt=C1

 

Sir Ken Robinson says our education system works like a factory. It's based on models of mass production and conformity that actually prevent kids from finding their passions and succeeding, he said.

 

"The problem is that educating young people is not like making motorcars -- at all," the author and educator said in a recent interview. "And one key difference is that motorcars have no interest in how they're made, and young people do."

 

Robinson's full speech and ideas were presented at TED, and if you have fifteen or twenty minutes, I highly suggest you watch the video:

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

 

If you don't have time for that, at least watch the video in the CNN article, as he makes very interesting points there as well.

 

His big point is that mass education ignores the individual talents that people have. He gives the example of a girl who was too fidgety and active to succeed in her elementary classes -- until a psychologist said, "Put her in a dance school," and she became a professional dancer. By forcing every student to learn the same things, and ignoring that students can have specific talents, we squash their talents and their creativity.

 

So. Is there merit to Robinson's claims? How would an education system that fosters individual development work? And should some teenagers be sent to pole-dancing lessons?

 

 

 

(Just kidding about one of those...)

[jimmydasaint]

Cap'n - I will catch up with the video later. As a teacher, I agree that our Western Education system ignores the theory of multiple intelligence and therefore deprives a considerable proportion of the students a chance to achieve their potential. In short, our education systems stink. All students show an intelligence or aptitude at something but our system ignores that and we force them all to conform to an academic syllabus which, perhaps, only 20% of them will truly enjoy and from which they will gain success.

 

http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm

 

Additionally, it is theorised that up to 80% of learners are concrete experiential learners who are not able to access levels of abstract material. If these theories are true, then we do not serve our students well, and the education system is set up for failure.

 

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/experience.htm#Elaborations

 

As a consequence, many students compromise and choose a route where they gain material satisfaction instead of job satisfaction. I was lucky enough, for a while, to follow my own interests in the research field. Not everyone is that lucky...

[John Cuthber]

I invite you to look back to the days when education was rare, and ask if you would have been better off living back then?

[jackson33]

While probably straying from the threads intent, it's long been my opinion, College is a total waste of time for well over half those that graduate. Early in high school, I don't understand why more aptitude testing or interest evaluations couldn't be done to direct students toward what most likely are their interest and capabilities. Then there is always the implied guaranty for success, in finishing HS, then especially if some degree is achieved before going out into the real world. College may be a good place to meet a future spouse or have a good time, but rarely a direct ticket to success, quite to the contrary.

 

As an employer over many years and hearing others, including Ophie (high end jobs), this forum, few actually look at resumes to evaluate education, for other than how it pertains to the jobs being applied for or in some cases, stability of character by finishing school, grade averages or general curriculum means very little. Today, I would suggest, many employers will use the term 'over qualified' just to deny a job, where any longevity is an issue.

 

I invite you to look back to the days when education was rare, and ask if you would have been better off living back then?[/Quote]

 

JohnC; In those days, being 'self taught' was the term used whether by parents or actually by the student through other than public means. It was not until after WWII that even High School Graduation, meant much for the jobs you could get and promotions were based on performance, not the education, in much of small business still practiced.

 

I do think, finishing High School is important or at least an equivalent (GED) and in some cases a vocational education or training, but for the majority of any of today's workforce, factory workers to truck drivers, College is not material.

 

Rather than going through some names, I've known that have done very well, with out higher education, in the Professional world, as Rush Limbaugh or Steve Jobs, I'll give you a list of Home Schooled people, that seem to have done OK...(of interest to another thread or two ongoing).

 

http://www.eadshome.com/Famoushomeschooled.htm

[CharonY]

I think that it is a no-brainer that individualized education will be beneficial. However, to provide that on a broad basis with qualified teachers is hardly possible.

However, one does not have to think that the HS or college curriculum is the whole package. One can always take additional hours according to interest and parents should (provided having enough time and money) foster their child's interests and support them individually.

However, I do think that talent is overrated for the most part. Interest is more important and that can be groomed.

[diabolik]

I have to agree with CharonY. Today's world is moving to fast. First of all it is very hard to come by good teachers, they have to be good at their field and they have to be good at teaching, and that I think is not something you can learn, you either have it or you don't. The interests of the child have to be "dissected" at home, but today who has the time to do this. Teachers should be able to give the proper presentation of a subject and the child has to choose between the options. Only you can decide what you are interested in. Parents that send their children to music classes at the age of 3 for example are just "shooting in the dark". Schools must give children the basic information and the child should choose a field of their interest and liking and develop. The problem is that the main concern of today's families is how much money they make. Some people just can't take the risk of going to art schools because of the low chance of successful job and high income. When applying for high school you think "what do i want to study" and "what i need to study to get a respectable position in society and good money". I think that option number two is more likely to be chosen. The issue is very complex. Not enough time to really understand and know your child, the misconception that arts can't give you the lifestyle you dream of, the lack of individualized education with people who actually know what they are doing, and the fast pace of the modern world.

[john5746]

I like the idea of 2 year high school, then let people move toward community college, apprenticeship, college or work. This would allow greater degrees of freedom for each student while allowing high schools to concentrate on a core.

[Mr Skeptic]

By forcing every student to learn the same things, and ignoring that students can have specific talents, we squash their talents and their creativity.

 

I think the problem here is not the part about forcing a broad education at the start (this allows people a taste of a variety of subjects), but rather the ignoring of individual talent. A few things really are important, like literacy, and basic math, and yes, even the hated english classes, yet many students might avoid these if they didn't need to learn them.

 

We are now at the stage where for certain people we could have a very very high quality of self-taught, interest-specific education via resources like the internet, and at a very low cost. Unfortunately, the government seems to think it best not to spend a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the money they spend on education, on a resource that will be freely available to everyone in perpetuity.

[jackson33]

I think that it is a no-brainer that individualized education will be beneficial. However, to provide that on a broad basis with qualified teachers is hardly possible.[/Quote]

 

CharonY; How about 'specialized' into later HS years or vocational training. It really doesn't take many people to evaluate aptitude and interest testing. In fact many business concerns and the US Military do these test on a regular basis. I'm not aware of current HS curriculum, certainly not in all the thousands of School District, but would bet there is a disproportionate number lined up for College entrance, to what actually do enter collage.

 

However, one does not have to think that the HS or college curriculum is the whole package. One can always take additional hours according to interest and parents should (provided having enough time and money) foster their child's interests and support them individually.[/Quote]

 

Actually they rarely do, short of athletes or people already set on following some career. Most probably have multiple ideas on what they want in life, where Career Consolers (All High Schools have) have little to work with. I'm afraid, most parents and their children have entirely different ideas on career choice, suppose that's my opinion.

 

However, I do think that talent is overrated for the most part. Interest is more important and that can be groomed. [/Quote]

 

I have no idea how many successful people I've known, that were happy they followed their personal interest/passion in life, especially having been in small business most of mine. Most rarely ever took time off, if ever and enjoyed getting up and heading out for the days challenges.

[ecoli]

I think it takes many people to get to college to figure this out (and maybe even grad school) to find their passions.

 

The problem is that college is expensive and not everybody should be going. I think we should make high school more like college. I think more high schools are letting high school juniors opt into community college (or other) programs. This is a step in the right direction, but why not implement these ideas further?

 

<insert rant about dept of education and gov't and public schools>

[pioneer]

Material success often begins with an idea for a unique market niche. It then requires drive, and perseverance, even when there is nothing yet to show for all your efforts. School actually helps with all these steps. School exposes students to a wide range of things making it easier to find your own unique niche. It gives one the ability to research and extrapolate.

 

College is something you pay for, sort of like going into debt to start a company. One is also required to put in long hours, without much in the way of immediate tangible material reward. The reward of school is at the end of the tunnel, like with success.

 

Maybe on the negative side of success, education teaches us more about the ideal world and often ignores the realities of the real world. PC, has added to this detachment from the real world, by creating an ideal world view. What could be, may not be what is, while knowing what is, is better for success, than knowing what we hope it can be. That is for people with extra time on their hands, which does not apply to success.

 

This idealism may be due, in part, to many teachers and professors never being part of the real world. They remain perpetual students, who don't have to depart from their college idealism.

 

Maybe colleges should alter the career path for some of the professors. Have them do jobs for 5-10 year jobs in the world, and/or recruit real world people, to become a professor. When they teach it will be better blend of ivory tower, and the surrounding real world moat.

[Severian]

I agree with the statement that education can prevent success, both at the level described in the OP, but also on a deeper level. I think formal education can completely wipe out our enthusiasm for the subjects we enjoy and are good at.

 

It also rewards completely the wrong skills. The ability to sit complete a two hour exam with no books in a closed room has little in common with the ability to solve problems in the real work place. I routinely see students graduate with top marks only to flounder badly in the work place, while students who didn't do so well academically flourish when they leave. In fact, I have seen employers who deliberately will not take students with the highest class of degree, preferring students who did well, but were not at the top.

 

I think this goes further than education though. I think our entire modern society is set up in a way which prevents you from doing the things you are good at and/or enjoy. There is an old joke that people who are bad at their jobs get promoted to a level where they can't do any harm, and although it is meant as a joke, there is definitely some truth to it. Rewards in the work place are not based on merit - they are based on the ability to sell yourself.