Feb 15 2012: can education make someone more intelligent?
That may be true at early developmental ages, but I seriously doubt it's true at higher ed.
I see many companies that require higher ed degrees in fields and jobs that don't need or benefit from more knowledge. Add to that the fact that higher ed is going to be teaching stale information, and it becomes even less valuable.
I think there's a lot of percepetion out there that college makes people smarter, and forcing employees to go to college will improve the workforce. But if you're getting the same employees, 4 years later than you would've, is it work the huge price tag?
A lot of higher ed is not directly relevant to basic job skills that one learns on the job. Of course that's not true for fields that require lots of CONTENT knowledge, but is probably true for many jobs that require intellegence and creative thinking.
I think some people (and our economy) would be better served to start work earlier, and then with context and real tangible problems (and potential solutions) in mind, take some higher education in a directed way.
Feb 15 2012: It seems to me that more learning can happen when a student has a burning interest and passion in a topic.
A theoretical model would be:
Students find topics on which they are passionate and /or wish to learn more.
They research the topic on their own or guided by a teacher / mentor. (Researching the research that is available, making critical thinking judgements, summarizing condensing.etc)
Then the students could share their research / findings and teach each other what they had learned.
If there were a way to measure / grade this, I would think it would be based around acheivments. i.e. a student has done 40 hours worth of research, written a term paper... etc. Sort of like badges.
That way a student could pick the subject (unlike in a traditional curriculum), but still gain the skills they are there to learn. And they could rack up hours of science, math, english, literature... content when subjects strike them as being relevant to them. That seems to be when really good efficient learning can happen, when a student is self motivated.
Feb 15 2012: yes and no. Certainly there needs to be a shift towards measuring / assessing the skills that are valuable. Information and facts can be found online. If you can find a fact online, understand the complete context, completely and utterly verify its truth in less time than someone who memorized / learned it, then the ability to seek knowledge would be more valuable than the skill to remember facts.
I'm in the IT field, and there are many examples where higher level skills (troubleshooting, envisioning a network / Active Directory / database design) simply cannot be applied without a solid background and knowledge of the underlying components.
These creative / innovative skills are more talent based, but cannot function on their own.
Knowledge of content is a pre-requisite for being able to apply higher level critical thinking skills. You can't ignore the content completely, but certainly more emphasis needs to be put on reaching higher levels of understanding like analysis and creative thinking.
I guess, to sum up, mastery of the content should not be the end of the learning, but the point at which the real, important learning can actually begin
TEDCred score: +0.30 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: What are the advantages/disadvantages of learning models that exist outside of traditional educational institutions?
A reply on Conversation: What are the advantages/disadvantages of learning models that exist outside of traditional educational institutions?
That may be true at early developmental ages, but I seriously doubt it's true at higher ed.
I see many companies that require higher ed degrees in fields and jobs that don't need or benefit from more knowledge. Add to that the fact that higher ed is going to be teaching stale information, and it becomes even less valuable.
I think there's a lot of percepetion out there that college makes people smarter, and forcing employees to go to college will improve the workforce. But if you're getting the same employees, 4 years later than you would've, is it work the huge price tag?
A lot of higher ed is not directly relevant to basic job skills that one learns on the job. Of course that's not true for fields that require lots of CONTENT knowledge, but is probably true for many jobs that require intellegence and creative thinking.
I think some people (and our economy) would be better served to start work earlier, and then with context and real tangible problems (and potential solutions) in mind, take some higher education in a directed way.
A comment on Conversation: What are the advantages/disadvantages of learning models that exist outside of traditional educational institutions?
A theoretical model would be:
Students find topics on which they are passionate and /or wish to learn more.
They research the topic on their own or guided by a teacher / mentor. (Researching the research that is available, making critical thinking judgements, summarizing condensing.etc)
Then the students could share their research / findings and teach each other what they had learned.
If there were a way to measure / grade this, I would think it would be based around acheivments. i.e. a student has done 40 hours worth of research, written a term paper... etc. Sort of like badges.
That way a student could pick the subject (unlike in a traditional curriculum), but still gain the skills they are there to learn. And they could rack up hours of science, math, english, literature... content when subjects strike them as being relevant to them. That seems to be when really good efficient learning can happen, when a student is self motivated.
A reply on Conversation: What are the advantages/disadvantages of learning models that exist outside of traditional educational institutions?
A reply on Conversation: What are the advantages/disadvantages of learning models that exist outside of traditional educational institutions?
I'm in the IT field, and there are many examples where higher level skills (troubleshooting, envisioning a network / Active Directory / database design) simply cannot be applied without a solid background and knowledge of the underlying components.
These creative / innovative skills are more talent based, but cannot function on their own.
Knowledge of content is a pre-requisite for being able to apply higher level critical thinking skills. You can't ignore the content completely, but certainly more emphasis needs to be put on reaching higher levels of understanding like analysis and creative thinking.
I guess, to sum up, mastery of the content should not be the end of the learning, but the point at which the real, important learning can actually begin