A challenge to the American educational system: The Critical Period

[Genecks]

For some background knowledge, please read these:

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Period_Hypothesis

 

I've been considering something for a while. I have considered that if people are to lead a life focused on a specialty, a type of life-career (say biologist, computer scientist, etc..), then they should be trained to be such at a young age. A form of technical training.

 

Why? Why should we ignore teaching them particular fields, such as history, art, and so forth?

Because of the critical periods that come across in people's lives.

 

So, let's say people are most prone to learning and becoming specialized in a particular field of study until age 12. And I'm throwing out that number, because it's the age at which people start declining in their ability to pick up a language, as much research has shown. And in some ways, being able to master the knowledge of a field is similar to being able to master the language of that field.

 

As people age, they become less sharp. So, if people are to specialize, they should be trained at an early age and not be forced to study things that are not immediately relevant to their field of study. So, if a person is forced to study history but wants to be a biologist, it might be better to force that person to learn historical things related to biology (learning about DNA's discovery, when people started certain experiments, when papers were published, etc..) rather than something about the British vs. the Americans for control of America.

 

You can see that both include people, historical dates, and titled works. The mission can be accomplished on both parts.

 

What do you think?

 

I think at worst, people may feel forced into a field of study that they cannot easily get out of later in life.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Genecks

[Incendia]

I like your idea...but such a thing would be difficult. You would need more teachers because you would need more classes because you would need to split each year group into field of interest rather than intelligence based on statistics from exams...Also field of interest would fluctuate. One year only 7 out of 60 students want to be scientists...the next year 40 out of 60 students may want to be in science...[Yes I know thats unlikely...'twas just and example...]

[CharonY]

I would recommend reading Huxley's brave new world. Other than that, horrible idea for the most part. The overall achievement would be to create highly specialized ignorants. The most important thing is to provide a broad knowledge basis first then to specialize. Immediate specialization often lacks context. Also, the technical skills are at best, secondary. A scientist needs to learn to balance creativity with critical thinking, be proficient in organizing and teaching knowledge. I would argue that learning in broad areas requiring different thought patterns is more efficient than, e.g. teaching a 12 year-old which buttons to press on an HPLC.