Some time this Spring I predicted that school politics would become really important in the upcoming election. Or rather, that it would be important enough to warrant debates on the topic beyond the usual glossing over and subsequent backhanded dismissal like what's typically done with topics like science and research: everyone agrees that it's important, but none can seem to substantiate any plan whatsoever beyond cheap catchphrases often including words like "change".
I'm lookin' like freakin' Nostradamus up in here Far be it from me to gloat, but it appears that I have been moderately successful in my predictions this time.
There are several reasons why I think education is important not just in and of itself, but also with respect to what political party gets my vote. Some of the reasons are tied in with parenthood and the fact that I want Viktor to get a good education within our school system. I don't want him to feel bored or left behind in a school system which at times appears to be little more than a storage facility for children and adolescents. Another reason is that being an academic staff member at a university, the level at which we can teach and thus the threshold level of knowledge we can impart on the students is limited by the baggage they bring with them from high school and earlier. We only have so much time with the students, and there is a definite limit to how steep the learning curve can get. Students entering universities with severe deficiencies in math, for example, is a serious problem. Moreover, if universities and university colleges are to adjust their levels according to lower levels of education, it's a brutal case of the tail wagging the dog. After all, degrees earned at our institutions of higher learning must comply with or ideally exceed international standards. Thus, it makes sense that the academic branches of the educational system work to prepare students for universities and university colleges. The converse does not make any sense.
However, this does not in any way, shape or form mean that I'm considering the worth of the educational system based on its ability to prepare students for university studies. Far from it. If anything, the current system puts too much emphasis on academics, which is manifested in the way trade school students are being forced to take a number of courses with the sole purpose of qualifying them for university acceptance - a low-budget version of the GED. Not only are trade school students forced to take the "academic route" courses, but their studies are also prolonged because of them. And lo and behold, trade school students are much more likely to drop out of school than their academic counterparts. Might that be because the system pulled a bait-and-switch on them? Maybe they don't see the relevance of adding such subjects as poetry analysis to their curriculum, and don't appreciate that these courses extend the duration of their education by 50% without them learning anymore of their desired trade.
Unless there's a huge influx of carpenters wanting to take a Master's degree in Nordic languages that I haven't heard anything about, I think it would be prudent to stop treating trade school and equivalents as the red-headed stepchild of the educational system. The country needs a whole lot more carpenters and electricians than it needs professors, and that's not an elitist way of thinking at all. Not all people are good at or interested in purely academic subjects, much like not everybody are practically oriented. For sure I'd be fried if I had to do anything with the electrical system myself. If our car breaks down on the highway, popping the hood would be a perfunctory exercise in which I'd only be looking for a giant switch that's dropped to the "off" position. I don't look down on any profession - except for lawyers, car salesweasels, real estate agents and "glamour models" - and I don't see how it's anything but condescending for the department of education to tell trade schools that "yeah; you teaching carpentry, electronics and other things requiring manual labor is all good and well, but in order for your school to qualify as part of the educational system, you need to add some proper subjects, like religion history and the ever-so-useful art of analysing poetry".
Wall of text - more to come.
There are several reasons why I think education is important not just in and of itself, but also with respect to what political party gets my vote. Some of the reasons are tied in with parenthood and the fact that I want Viktor to get a good education within our school system. I don't want him to feel bored or left behind in a school system which at times appears to be little more than a storage facility for children and adolescents. Another reason is that being an academic staff member at a university, the level at which we can teach and thus the threshold level of knowledge we can impart on the students is limited by the baggage they bring with them from high school and earlier. We only have so much time with the students, and there is a definite limit to how steep the learning curve can get. Students entering universities with severe deficiencies in math, for example, is a serious problem. Moreover, if universities and university colleges are to adjust their levels according to lower levels of education, it's a brutal case of the tail wagging the dog. After all, degrees earned at our institutions of higher learning must comply with or ideally exceed international standards. Thus, it makes sense that the academic branches of the educational system work to prepare students for universities and university colleges. The converse does not make any sense.
However, this does not in any way, shape or form mean that I'm considering the worth of the educational system based on its ability to prepare students for university studies. Far from it. If anything, the current system puts too much emphasis on academics, which is manifested in the way trade school students are being forced to take a number of courses with the sole purpose of qualifying them for university acceptance - a low-budget version of the GED. Not only are trade school students forced to take the "academic route" courses, but their studies are also prolonged because of them. And lo and behold, trade school students are much more likely to drop out of school than their academic counterparts. Might that be because the system pulled a bait-and-switch on them? Maybe they don't see the relevance of adding such subjects as poetry analysis to their curriculum, and don't appreciate that these courses extend the duration of their education by 50% without them learning anymore of their desired trade.
Unless there's a huge influx of carpenters wanting to take a Master's degree in Nordic languages that I haven't heard anything about, I think it would be prudent to stop treating trade school and equivalents as the red-headed stepchild of the educational system. The country needs a whole lot more carpenters and electricians than it needs professors, and that's not an elitist way of thinking at all. Not all people are good at or interested in purely academic subjects, much like not everybody are practically oriented. For sure I'd be fried if I had to do anything with the electrical system myself. If our car breaks down on the highway, popping the hood would be a perfunctory exercise in which I'd only be looking for a giant switch that's dropped to the "off" position. I don't look down on any profession - except for lawyers, car salesweasels, real estate agents and "glamour models" - and I don't see how it's anything but condescending for the department of education to tell trade schools that "yeah; you teaching carpentry, electronics and other things requiring manual labor is all good and well, but in order for your school to qualify as part of the educational system, you need to add some proper subjects, like religion history and the ever-so-useful art of analysing poetry".
Wall of text - more to come.
Posts
5 comments:
I don't want him to feel bored or left behind in a school system
Would be good thing to pass something like, say, a No Child Left Behind Act? That sounds brilliant!
Students entering universities with severe deficiencies in math...
And some leave the university with severe deficiencies in math, and yet manage to squeeze their way into an academic position...
:-D
I don't look down on any profession - except for lawyers, car salesweasels, real estate agents and "glamour models"
And MDs. They belong in that bunch.
If our car breaks down on the highway, popping the hood would be a perfunctory exercise in which I'd only be looking for a giant switch that's dropped to the "off" position.
Are you saiying there arn't any huge on/off switches under the hood?
Jokes aside. There are a couple of things with the current educational system that I do keep thinking about. First of all, I do agree with you that the non-practical/ non-related subjects for trade school students are a bit too much.
Secondly, I don't really see the point of some students taking the academic route, and end their education after high school. The content of the academic route does not qualify for a job, just for further studies, so those people would have been better off with a trade school education.
We also see eye-to-eye on the university not adopting their teaching to the level of the students. But I'd like to ask one question: If the students entering the Universities are lacking more and more of key knowledge, and the universities still going to maintain their level, where is that going? Failing a higher and higher percentage of the students is a waste of money and university staff. It's obvious something got to be done.
On the other side, I also feel that it's important to have possibilities open for skilled people. You basically make your first choice about your future career at least as early as the age of 16, when you choose which high school to attend. That choice may or may not be the correct one. So I do strongly feel that, fx it should be possible, and easy, for a skilled electrician after some years to become an electrical engineer. Or an engineer to take a master, etc, etc. Because the key to have better skilled students starting at university, is to start specialising them at an early stage. And specialising means that the students have to make a choice of career earlier and the options after high school becomes fewer.
So basically, what I find lacking from political parties, is a clear statement of how long the students are suppose to be treated the same, and when they gonna start specialising. Being equal has it good sides, especially during the early years, but specialising will give an higher level of learning within the specialised field. You can't have it both ways.
And some leave the university with severe deficiencies in math, and yet manage to squeeze their way into an academic position...
Good thing I'm anonymous, huh? :-)
Are you saiying there arn't any huge on/off switches under the hood?
That's teh word on the street
If the students entering the Universities are lacking more and more of key knowledge, and the universities still going to maintain their level, where is that going? Failing a higher and higher percentage of the students is a waste of money and university staff.
The problem has not reached breaking point proportions just yet. However, the current financing system wherein universities don't get paid if students fail certainly does nothing to improve quality....
I've got one unpopular suggestion lined up in the next post about it.
So I do strongly feel that, fx it should be possible, and easy, for a skilled electrician after some years to become an electrical engineer. Or an engineer to take a master, etc, etc.
That option currently exists. If you've got a certificate of apprenticeship, university colleges have a two-year (soon to be three-year for much the same reasons trade school students need to learn poetry analysis) program designed for just that purpose. Which is a really good thing, as it targets the people who actually want to take more education, and doesn't just spread the pain amongst all students without any clear objective.
I've got one unpopular suggestion lined up in the next post about it.
Looking forward to that one...
That option currently exists. If you've got a certificate of apprenticeship, university colleges have a two-year (soon to be three-year for much the same reasons trade school students need to learn poetry analysis) program designed for just that purpose.
I know. But when it becomes a three year stint, it ain't that easy any more. But if you start specialising earlier, it will become more and more difficult to have such programs.
Post a Comment