I think the strong focus on STEM in highschool and university is a common problem throughout the world. When I was in highschool in Spain, even though I was in science, not in humanities/arts, I still had to take two years of Philosophy, one year of Latin and a comprehension and discussion essay of a reading was a major component of the exams to access college. Nowadays, in STEM highschool, Latin isn’t a requirement anymore, and the Philosophy requirement has been reduced in half. I find this very unfortunate and a great loss to future generations. As a teenager, I remember complaining about having to take Philosophy and Latin. Now not only I am glad I had to, but I wish I would have been required to take more of it.

Regarding some of the ideas in your last paragraph: while it is true that we need to create more engaging learning environments to motivate students, I also believe we must not abandon the value of discipline and effort in education. The feeling of accomplishment after a long stretch of hard work helps us gain confidence on oneselves. Personal growth is as important in education as expanding knowledge.

LikeLike

I think we should make an effort to separate university, and especially graduate school, from a process to prepare us for work. Of course, we all want to have a rewarding career, both in professional achievements as well as in our banking affairs. But we should try to find the joy in learning itself, in that spark that lits up our mind and our soul. Yes, romanticism alone won’t pay our mortgage, but a lot of today’s frustration in college graduates comes from the unrealistic expectations seeded in us (and nurtured by us) regarding job outcomes once in possession of our degrees. If we love what we study and do, we will certainly end up being better professionals, but fulfilling our passion for a subject should be enough to pursue our education.

Yes, technology allows to have our brains interconnected within a larger net. It is almost as if we are now, more than ever, a social supra-organism, a gigantic ant colony or bee hive. One concern I have, however, is: are we going to be able, as a society, to keep this supranet of information-sharing compatible with individual self expression? A few major lines of thinking are fast being established throughout this new communication and socializing environment, and the community can be brutal with those who dare dissent from that major stream of ideas. As with those ant colonies or bee hives, we can quickly be segregated into castes.

LikeLike

Hi Bernardo,

I agree with you that managing and learning all those new technological tools requires a good amount of skills. And they can really help with learning. But sometimes it feels as if not using any of that technology in the classroom is a no-no nowadays. Some of best learning experiences have been in classes where all technology was a chalk board, a transparency projector and a piece of paper. As Aritra mentioned above, we need to ne able to preserve what is worth of the “traditional” teaching tools in combination with what it is worth (not everything will be) of the new ones.

Hi Yesim. Thank you for your comment. I have not read anything from Vygotsky, so I can’t comment on that, but you sure whet my appetite to find out more about his ideas. And I agree with you: a generation of students fully trained in critical thinking could lead to some convulsive days with out current system.

LikeLike

Hi Yesim. Thank you for your comment. I have not read anything from Vygotsky, so I can’t comment on that, but you sure whet my appetite to find out more about his ideas. And I agree with you: a generation of students fully trained in critical thinking could lead to some convulsive days with out current system.

LikeLike

Hi James. Recently in another pedagogy class it was mentioned that at about age 19 students are ready for critical thinking learning. I do not know much about cognitive development, but that milestone of 19 y.o. pretty much lines up with college education. In which case, yes, your point about sme basic initial content must be taught – the traditional way I suppose? And I also agree with your last sentence: teaching students to think critically can be challenging when they have been raised in the banking system, so they are expecting a regular lecture presentation.

LikeLike

Hi James. Recently in another pedagogy class it was mentioned that at about age 19 students are ready for critical thinking learning. I do not know much about cognitive development, but that milestone of 19 y.o. pretty much lines up with college education. In which case, yes, your point about sme basic initial content must be taught – the traditional way I suppose? And I also agree with your last sentence: teaching students to think critically can be challenging when they have been raised in the banking system, so they are expecting a regular lecture presentation.

LikeLike

I think you hit the sweet spot in your second paragraph: too big to change. The higher education system has gotten a lot of momentum towards becoming a tool for people to find a niche in the job market. It has become a vocational school of sorts, and a very profitable one. A lot of that quest for the truth that originated from the first universities has been sheded off with massification (less quality to reach a broader market). Can we revert this process without downsizing?