I agree with your assessment. The old ways of teaching our children aren't keeping pace with their quest for learning. Restricting their access to new technologies isn't going to help them. The current educational system wasn't exactly a perfect fit for most people either, but in previous generations there were no alternatives. The wealth of knowledge available at our children's fingertips means we can't force-fit them into the old way of learning and we can't use the same measuring stick to guage their performance.
TRUE social networking - I think Dave nailed it.
"Actually it is already here but most of us haven't yet notice."
Terrible at texting indeed :)
As a sidebar to this thesis, and as someone involved in computer security, I have been interested in the changing social norms due to the anonymity of the web. My parents are offended by it. To my daughter, it's just part of the environment.
I think that issues of identity and trust are going to have to go thru an absorption process like the one Bob describes. Think of what moving from small towns to large metropolises meant in terms of personal security. Something similar will happen (is already happening) for web interactions.
Later . . . Jim
I visited a small private Christian school yesterday, no less, with a view to possibly enrolling my 5 year old son in the fall. This school meets three days a week, with two days being used for "home" school (but what they do during that time is dictated by the school.) You would not believe how far advanced this school is compared to the public schools. Kindergarten children were reading words, reciting vowels (long and short sounds). The children were invited to the board to parse words in accord with pronunciation rules. For example, "kite", would be marked with a short line over the i to indicate a long sound and the e with a slash through it. And, get this -- these kindergarten kids were being taught cursive. The combined first and second grade class was practicing math -- subtraction of three digit numbers including borrowing, plus learning roman numerals. The third and fourth grade class were reciting Bible verses and catechism statements. But I also observed a bulletin board layout with lots of Latin words. The 8th grade was also doing math -- Algebra, but it looked to me to be Algebra II -- a sophomore or junior year level when I was in school. I was all quite surprised at all how much ahead they all were. Now, the school is particular about who they admit -- not necessarily gifted kids, even though they were drawn from a prosperous upper middle class population that is no doubt above the mean. Their standards have more to do with how the kids behaves in the interview process -- whether they have self control and can remain focused and study well. And yes, most of these families are generation Y. I think you are right, a revolution in education is coming. Interesting observations.
Being able to search for and find the answer is all well and good, but what happens when you can't find the answer because no one has solved the problem yet? At some point you have to be able to take what you learn and solve new problems with it.
Until people start taking conscious action to start behaving like responsible citizens instead of mindless self serving consumers, this county and everything it once stood for will continue to go straght to hell in a bread basket.
Umm, I think you are in error regarding videos of MIT lecture courses. There are audio and video materials for a small minority of its courses, but that is all.
And, I would go even further and suggest that their open courseware initiative has been a bit of a hollow gesture - with many of the courses supplying a meager and inconsistent set of materials, which fall far short from being sufficient for self-study.
Bob raises some interesting points, but I think he misses one of the major concepts of education. While technical education (math, science, etc.) is important, socialization is equally so. And although extracurricular activities provide opportunities to socialize, it isn't enough.
The times they may be a changin', but not in the same way, and not for everyone. While the way we do research or design products may change, many other things will not. Building homes or bridges will still require coordination, teamwork, and manual labor. And business deals will still be negotiated over cocktails. These are skills you can't learn while sequestered in front of a computer.
I understand your point of view, but I must disagree. Partially.
Nothing substitutes learning critical thinking skills. Look, I don't care if you can perform complex algebra or even if you remember every date in American history. I do care if you can read, write and think coherently. In other words, I care if you have the tools to continue learning on your own.
I agree that we are in a searching society. I work for an educational institution that promotes critical thinking skills over rote memorization. That is the point. You learned to think and learn. Doesn't matter what you remember, because you can reteach yourself at any time by Googling it and reading over it.
As for public education.... What a joke. I don't think the problem is strictly with the teaching style (though their foundation of humanism is flawed at its core). The problem starts at home and throwing money at schools will never fix the parents. Unfortunately.
About the time my son was getting into reading, I made the fatal mistake of bringing video games into the house. He never wired his brain for reading. Now, as a college sophomore, he has to contruct (and understand/assimilate) clear, cogent analytic argument...and it's real heavy going. He would like to puff on a pipe, wave his hands and pontificate.
Sorry but that does not work. This sea change you're talking about may be real, but there are significant imppairment to the functional abilities of the next generation. Glorifying incoherence does not create a generation that can compete with the Indians, Brazilians and Chinese.
First Point: The trend toward needing to know how to access info more than the info itself is a long term trend, perhaps starting with the advent of inexpensive, mass production of books, made possible by Gutenberg and those that followed. However, context is very important to know what the information really means. Expertise in an area gives context. Do you want your surgeon to know where to find the information on surgical anatomy or to know it cold before your appendectomy?
Second point: Reading whole books gives alot more context and alot more understanding than snippets on wikipedia or sparknotes. If you want future generations to have a fact-poor one dimensional view of the world, like that of our current president, then by all means let them browse the subjects superficially and extract bits and pieces to suit their pre-existing beliefs.
Third Point: Critical thinking skills and communication skills are honed via social interactions with peers and mentors not sitting in front of a computer. The University is an ideal place for those processes.
Your opinions might apply to a community college, but online lectures and study materials can in no way compare to an MIT education.
At MIT, nobody learns in the lectures. You learn in recitations, (smaller lectures taught by professors other than the lecturer), and by the homework and projects.
Research experience is huge at MIT, 80% of undergraduates (not just graduates) take a research position while at MIT.
Whether that's worth $35k or not is up to them, but getting an education is not the same as having access to the information.
Thank you for validating something my husband and I have been kicking around for quite some time now. It's much easier to send a link, with a well-expressed and enjoyable read behind it, than to convince someone over dinner that all of this is truly coming down.
Here's hoping that this article spreads and scares the funding right out of the broken schooling systems!
Oh, and Dave Brown . . . desirable socialization doesn't happen in most traditional schools. Every desirable social skill necessary to life can be learned far more effectively, and without the trauma, social cliques/hazing, and outright limiting programming that schooling ingrains.
There is an ISO program for students: the International Baccalaureate Program @ www.ib.org. It offers a consistent educational experience from K through high school. In order to obtain an IB Diploma (not just graduate), students must pass rigorous exams. We have two elementary school kids in an IB Charter School, and there is an IB high school nearby.
Despite the proliferation of electronic gadgets, book reading is required. My fifth grader seems to be able to context switch between XBox 360 and paper as well as can be expected...
ISO certification destroyed the mfg economy? I'm sorry I didn't know there was ISO certification for Nikes and other shoes, ISO certification for clothing, drugs and so on. I like those ISO certified medications made in China & other ISO certified comestibles. And all the time I thought it was the cheap labor.
The accelerating price of higher ed. is only going to usher in this new era. I'm being told to budget half a million dollars to put my two toddlers through college. For a time when fully immersive telepresence will be commonplace? C'mon, get real.
Sending young adults away to college was established because it was resource mandated and economically feasible. When both of those things evaporate, what's left?
The above commenters have a good point about contacts - the Ivy I went to was valuable for me for the reason that I met lots of people who could get in there. Are we to believe this is the only workable model? If so, top colleges will be able to expand their tuition without bounds. If not, well, let me poke fun at people who think that we've reached the epitome of social networking.
There are good reasons for kids to learn to live on their own, there are good reasons to meet people, there are good reasons to gather to share physical resources. But these things aren't necessarily tightly coupled, and the genius who develops an Internet-based competing model is going to do pretty well for himself.
Oh, and for the record, we reject old people's Generation-N labels ("when you label me, you negate me"). Bob, you were getting a book published when I was entering Kindergarten. :)
ISO certification destroyed the mfg economy? I'm sorry I didn't know there was ISO certification for Nikes and other shoes, ISO certification for clothing, drugs and so on. I like those ISO certified medications made in China & other ISO certified comestibles. And all the time I thought it was the cheap labor.
One could argue that the main purpose of public schools is babysitting and there is history to support this point of view. After all children are not realistically employable until they are 16.
So if the parents are working (or mom needs a break) where do the children go?
Yes, education needs to change. My parents grew up just after the depression and the education is very similar to what it was then.
I have done on-line classes, distance learning, 'home study', as well as traditional teacher led. Many of my peers argue that 'learn by doing' is the 'only way' to really learn.
Personally, I like the 'try it, teach it, learn the theory needed to make it work' approach used at my sons college. Olin.edu ... Is it for everyone?
No. But neither is any other SINGLE approach.
I am not really concerned about teaching. I am concerned about 'learning'. Learning is what we want to have happen, no matter about the 'teaching'.
My kids went to public school mainly in the 'burbs of Houston TX. Average cost for the district we were is was $4800/yr/student. About $1000/student higher than the state average. My kids got an 'above average' education, because we helped them focus on learning. Learning was their job. Outside 'jobs' etc were good, but their PRIMARY job was learning.
What I see NOT changing in the future is the need for motivation from HOME. Yes, the PARENTS are a fundamental portion of the LEARNING experience. And there should be no-one more interested in a childs LEARNING than their parents. The parents should be even more interested than the children.
Learning can and should be fun. Fun is not the primary objective, but it can be the 'carrot' to entice and teach the love of learning.
Part of learning is teaching our children HOW to learn. And we must learn from them, but observing, what method(s) THEY learn best in. Olin is a very hands on approach. They give you a project, then teach you what it takes to get it done as needed. MIT starts with the theory then does gives you a 'project' to support the theory. Two different methods to the same goal. Some students do well in both, but most do better in one or the other type learning styles.
I applaud folks that will foster and continue their education and that of their children using ANY method that works for them. Personally I think UofPhoenix is a bit to high priced, but they are in it to make a buck, then provide education. And that model motivates some students to focus more. So for those students, it is the right style.
Back to the focus of Cringley this issue: Yes, what we are doing now is NOT the best. I argue we will ALWAYS be teaching the 'last big thing', and never the 'current big thing'. Teaching 'todays' details is NOT what education is about. It is about helping students LEARN. Learn how they learn. Recognize how they learn. Enjoy the process of learning. And most critically, learn how to think critically about anything they are being 'taught' so they can educate themselves.
Back to my thesis: No one can really be taught anything. We can be presented information. But WE MUST LEARN by ourselves. Teaching and classes can help, but WE MUST LEARN. Learning is an individual task, where teaching is not.
Excellent. Hasn't the majority of society detested the popularity contests, senseless memorization of facts that will be forgot within a few years (if not months), worthless classes on such a spectrum of subjects that no one will ever use. How many people actually learn a foreign language because they took it in school? How many people remember the leader of France in the middle of the 14th century? Who cares!? If I need to know I'll search for it and have an answer in minutes if not seconds. I used to beleive it was worth the effort so that you "knew where to look". The internet and search technology has changed that. Public school has become a recruiting and filtration ground for expensive colleges that only continue excessive learning and often meaningless memorization. The only real value that these public institutions seem to provide is a social network of other frustrated youths. I'm sure there's better ways for adolescents to socialize and expand their networks. But there's unlikely to be a better way to spread propaganda and pre-program drones for a pleasure oriented workforce. Wow...I didn't know I had all that in me. Thanks for the purge Bob. I guess I meant to say that I agree with you. ;)
The big advantage of school is the one-to-one interaction with teachers. To learn something like writing you need someone to read your stuff and comment on it and expect you to make changes and turn it back in. Of course, at public schools or maybe more so at colleges there is little of that. Professors often don't even return work. This is exactly why many students can't write. Then you have a situation where many teachers can't write because they were never taught. All the foreign teachers coming in doesn't help either. So the only advantage left is the role the teacher plays in giving you a grade and forcing you to meet deadlines and such. This is probably most important in science or math. If you've ever tried to study math or computers on your own it's hard. Once you get a foundation you can do it but starting out it's almost impossible. There's a bit of Moore's law there where sometimes it feels like you're not learning anything in clss but then you look back and realize you covered alot. There is one other way to accomplish the same thing which is on the job training. The old apprentice system worked pretty well. The direction is away from that though.
The educational system has been broken for a long time, but it adapts (slowly), and it will continue to adapt. Computers and pervasive information will be part of the system, not replace it. Kids need someplace to go to have an opportuniy to learn - most of the problem with the state of education in America is a problem at home, not at school. Homeschooling requires someone to stay home and direct the child. If I leave a 5th grader at home for a year with a computer, do you think he is going to magically get a year's worth of education? It might work for some types of higher learning with motivated people, but get real.
The big advantage of school is the one-to-one interaction with teachers. To learn something like writing you need someone to read your stuff and comment on it and expect you to make changes and turn it back in. Of course, at public schools or maybe more so at colleges there is little of that. Professors often don't even return work. This is exactly why many students can't write. Then you have a situation where many teachers can't write because they were never taught. All the foreign teachers coming in doesn't help either. So the only advantage left is the role the teacher plays in giving you a grade and forcing you to meet deadlines and such. This is probably most important in science or math. If you've ever tried to study math or computers on your own it's hard. Once you get a foundation you can do it but starting out it's almost impossible. There's a bit of Moore's law there where sometimes it feels like you're not learning anything in clss but then you look back and realize you covered alot. There is one other way to accomplish the same thing which is on the job training. The old apprentice system worked pretty well. The direction is away from that though.
The big advantage of school is the one-to-one interaction with teachers. To learn something like writing you need someone to read your stuff and comment on it and expect you to make changes and turn it back in. Of course, at public schools or maybe more so at colleges there is little of that. Professors often don't even return work. This is exactly why many students can't write. Then you have a situation where many teachers can't write because they were never taught. All the foreign teachers coming in doesn't help either. So the only advantage left is the role the teacher plays in giving you a grade and forcing you to meet deadlines and such. This is probably most important in science or math. If you've ever tried to study math or computers on your own it's hard. Once you get a foundation you can do it but starting out it's almost impossible. There's a bit of Moore's law there where sometimes it feels like you're not learning anything in clss but then you look back and realize you covered alot. There is one other way to accomplish the same thing which is on the job training. The old apprentice system worked pretty well. The direction is away from that though.
The big advantage of school is the one-to-one interaction with teachers. To learn something like writing you need someone to read your stuff and comment on it and expect you to make changes and turn it back in. Of course, at public schools or maybe more so at colleges there is little of that. Professors often don't even return work. This is exactly why many students can't write. Then you have a situation where many teachers can't write because they were never taught. All the foreign teachers coming in doesn't help either. So the only advantage left is the role the teacher plays in giving you a grade and forcing you to meet deadlines and such. This is probably most important in science or math. If you've ever tried to study math or computers on your own it's hard. Once you get a foundation you can do it but starting out it's almost impossible. There's a bit of Moore's law there where sometimes it feels like you're not learning anything in clss but then you look back and realize you covered alot. There is one other way to accomplish the same thing which is on the job training. The old apprentice system worked pretty well. The direction is away from that though.
The big advantage of school is the one-to-one interaction with teachers. To learn something like writing you need someone to read your stuff and comment on it and expect you to make changes and turn it back in. Of course, at public schools or maybe more so at colleges there is little of that. Professors often don't even return work. This is exactly why many students can't write. Then you have a situation where many teachers can't write because they were never taught. All the foreign teachers coming in doesn't help either. So the only advantage left is the role the teacher plays in giving you a grade and forcing you to meet deadlines and such. This is probably most important in science or math. If you've ever tried to study math or computers on your own it's hard. Once you get a foundation you can do it but starting out it's almost impossible. There's a bit of Moore's law there where sometimes it feels like you're not learning anything in clss but then you look back and realize you covered alot. There is one other way to accomplish the same thing which is on the job training. The old apprentice system worked pretty well. The direction is away from that though.
You may want to follow many of these debates, from an educational - and "special educational" - point of view (for this is not simply a generational battle - it is a battle for civil rights and essential equity) at http://speedchange.blogspot.com/
The old adage about giving someone a fish vs. teaching them to fish applies to knowledge/expertise too.
Of course once education is mostly online it will soon be shipped to India.
Then it won't be just midwestern states that are selling complete school buildings and land on eBay for $5 a square foot.
To anyone who will defend public schools with ANY argument....my post applys: THEY SUCK! You can not expect to put some lactating liberal who only choose the teaching profession because WOW ....I get 3 monthes off a year! and expect them to do anything but foul the job up royaly. And yes...by and large that is who is teaching. Sure there are a few exceptions. But honestly they are truly rare.
To anyone who will defend public schools with ANY argument....my post applys: THEY SUCK! You can not expect to put some lactating liberal who only choose the teaching profession because WOW ....I get 3 monthes off a year! and expect them to do anything but foul the job up royaly. And yes...by and large that is who is teaching. Sure there are a few exceptions. But honestly they are truly rare.
People don't read? Oh, that would explain why J.K. Rowling is a pauper and why Oprah has a typing club.
One of the benefits of the net has been cheap books (transparent pricing)...
What a lot of people fail to realize is that teachers do not teach you anything. You teach yourself.
What we call teachers ideally are mentors and guides. They are there to help you understand concepts that would be difficult to understand on your own.
Lecturing is the crude bulk dissemination of information. As with a lot of bulk repetitive tasks, this is better handled with a computer. What the teacher is really needed for is to help students understand certain difficult concepts.
Even this one on one assistance is more effectively handled through a computer and the internet. Through the use of remote video, audio and computer access a teacher could assist a student with understanding difficult concepts on a one on one basis. The teacher does not have to be in the same room with the student to do this.
Your teachers were all lactating? I can see why didn't pay attention during speeelleing lessons :-)
If, uh, you're into that kind of thing. Which I'm not. Mostly. :-P
What makes an MIT education worth what it costs? The piece of paper you get at the end which says "Bachelor of Science" on it. That's it.
But that's likely to continue being worth rather a lot.
A public high school diploma? Essentially worthless. The only thing it's good for is serving as the least important of many prerequisites for a student's admission to college, and smart parents are waking up to the fact that there are better ways of satisfying that requirement...and that most of those other methods will result in a better education for their kids.
If the public school scam collapses tomorrow, it wouldn't be too soon for my taste. I know my kids will never be touching that monstrosity.
I am right here with you on this one. If I had a kid in school right now, I would home school her online and send her to all the after school activities to get socialized and make contacts. The schools do not teach things that the kids need to know NOW, and the kids know it. My foster kid, in college, is taking accounting and learning hos to post debits and credits. How old is Quicken????
For me it was seeing that KK Downing (Judas Priest guitarist) knew what a Venn Diagram was, however kids I've tutored in math in first year university didn't.
Outstanding! This is why I keep coming back to this column.
One thing concerns me about the downfall of the school. I value my alma maters for their communal value. They taught me how to be social - how to converse about non-education topics, how to make friends, who not to befriend, how to influence others, when to adopt the values and ideas of others that no text book or online lecture video will ever cover. There's something to be said for taking a random group of kids and adolescents, throwing them together, and figuring how to live with each other. If I got my education online, or home schooled, for that matter, I'd be a social recluse. Afraid, unwanting, or unable to hold a job interview, go on a date, or go to a party. There's a substantial minority of kids who can't make friends via social network sites, texting, or whatever the next big thing is. And some kids, to their detriment, just choose not to.
You're right. Our schools are badly broken! I spent 40 years teaching mostly science and math in a public high school, always trying to find a better way to provide skills students need. In the end I was campaigning that we needed to seriously reconsider what students would need for the 21st Century. And school administrators, largely fearful of change, were looking for ways to show me the door.
I'm now spending full time trying to determine what students really should be taught, and if that can be provided with appropriate practice via the web. While educational institutions will continue to try to maintain traditions, I expect we will soon have free global public education for those who want it. The hardest part is trying to determine what skills and understanding a person will need to effectively use the search and other things technology is providing.
Having received a doctorate from MIT in 69, having taught there for 8 years, and having started computing with a Royal McBee LGP-30 with drum memory some years before that, I can say that every generation has faced "break the mold" technology changes: programmable calculators until now.
What makes an in-house education beat a web education hands down is interaction face-to-face. It's easy to dismiss the value of direct face time -- the nuances of gesture, the debates over a beer, the shared struggle at the blackboard in an empty classroom to solve a knotty problem, the trial balloons floated among your fellows that you don't want to try on your advisor -- I learned more from my fellow students through 5 years of graduate study in such excellent company than I did from all previous education or from the professors. I don't think that will ever go away.
Check this out - almost 4000 educational, research, science videos online; Cambridge, CMU and others participating...
http://videolectures.net/
Having received a doctorate from MIT in 69, having taught there for 8 years, and having started computing with a Royal McBee LGP-30 with drum memory some years before that, I can say that every generation has faced "break the mold" technology changes: programmable calculators until now.
What makes an in-house education beat a web education hands down is interaction face-to-face. It's easy to dismiss the value of direct face time -- the nuances of gesture, the debates over a beer, the shared struggle at the blackboard in an empty classroom to solve a knotty problem, the trial balloons floated among your fellows that you don't want to try on your advisor -- I learned more from my fellow students through 5 years of graduate study in such excellent company than I did from all previous education or from the professors. I don't think that will ever go away.
ISO 9000 is an effect, not a cause. It helps management justify it's existence.
The customer could care less about certificates, they want it cheaper, and better, but mostly cheaper.
We already have the equivalent of ISO 9000 in education. It's called "No child left behind". The difference is there are no market pressures to force improvement. If technology can help provide competition, we may get improvement. Until then most of the effort will go into a paper trail, to justify business as usual.
Brian
Fascinating and thought-provoking article, Bob! Bravo!
A critical component to the technology vs. education issue is the fundamental question of philosophy of education. What does it mean to educate, and why educate in the first place? If education is merely preparing someone to effectively apply knowledge to answer questions, solve problems, and achieve goals in life and business, then it makes sense that the search economy would seriously threaten the deterministic educational establishment.
However, alternative educational mediums such as home schooling, charter schools, and even self-education do not operate purely on a search economy. They also focus on molding a student's deterministic world-view. (Everyone has one.)
True education includes conscientiously guiding the character and self-awareness of the student in relation to the particular subject matter toward an overriding purpose. People seek alternatives to the "educational establishment" more often due to a difference in philosophy than merely a disagreement over method.
The ultimate failure of the current educational establishment is a philosophical failure, not merely an issue of method or process. What the student is evolving toward will always be as and more important than how the educator gets him there.
The question is what should the ultimate end of the educational metamorphosis be?
Wow. What a well-written, well-thought out, intelligent and thought-provoking essay!
I am a big believer in education but schools are moving away from education and towards training. There is a big difference.
I recently had to hire a new engineer. I had a choice between a well-rounded, well-educated guy with a broad perspective or a guy who did this exact same job for his last two companies. I chose the latter because I was under pressure to get the new guy up and running ASAP.
So I chose training over education. Short term, great for me. But I wondered why this guy would want to do the same old job over and over again? Long term, that is what is wrong with our educational system. That is what is wrong with our economy's short-sighted focus on quarterly earnings and, sadly, that is what's wrong with our country and why its inexorable slide into mediocrity is inevitable. Sigh.
My chidren are all adults, so their opinions would not really be relevant. However, I will consider circularizing my grandchildren with your column. I trust that forwarding will not get me into trouble wth you.
It was an interesting column, but only time will reveal whether it is really predicitive.
I live in Norway, and have two little boys in the Norwegian school system, which is a bit like having two little boys in 1957.
I have been beating the drum of "Let them have their cell phones!" for the past three years...to no avail. I am forwarding your article to the principals of the two schools that my kids attend. Of course, that probably will just get me another one of those "here comes the Crazy American" looks. However, the system has to change, or it's going to collapse because these kids are going to tear it down from the inside.
I 100% agree with you Bob. The state of education now is analogous too how the Military are always fighting 'the last war' both in strategy and technological terms. I guess when the 'grey' hairs run the system (I'm one!) its difficult to see how new thinking can be deployed without a battle between the two sides.
"people don't read books" but we should.
Very interesting article - and I agree to it.
The problem I always had in such discussions is, that as soon as you criticize the system with real arguments - you end up criticizing the people who currently control it - and profit from it (teachers/polititians).
And those people are willing to reform the system only as long as they stay in control of it.
We're quite deadlocked purely because of money.
Very interesting article - and I agree to it.
The problem I always had in such discussions is, that as soon as you criticize the system with real arguments - you end up criticizing the people who currently control it - and profit from it (teachers/polititians).
And those people are willing to reform the system only as long as they stay in control of it.
We're quite deadlocked purely because of money.
Very interesting article - and I agree to it.
The problem I always had in such discussions is, that as soon as you criticize the system with real arguments - you end up criticizing the people who currently control it - and profit from it (teachers/polititians).
And those people are willing to reform the system only as long as they stay in control of it.
We're quite deadlocked purely because of money.
A very interesting piece. I read this column then looked at my own situation to compare how it fits.
I first came across you Bob as your book, Accidental Empires, was used in one on the modules I was studying in the Technology degree I was studying for. I have read your column ever since.
I am in my mid 40's yet I share the same view.I have always been interested in technology and therefore we have a household which is pretty modern.
The effect this has had on my 2 boys growing up has been amazing. I got a copy of the 3D software Maya for my youngest son when he was 10. Any adult looking at Maya for the first time would come out in a sweat by its visual appearance of complexity, but my son took to it like a duck to water and he models on it with such speed and creativity, that my wife and I are left watching in awe. He is not even a top performer at school either.
When he goes to school, he *teaches* the IT teacher on technology. At first I found this amusing, but then I realised that something is wholly wrong. How can the education system be lagging so far behind I asked myself.?
I have come to the conclusion that institutions like schools have no change management culture. In business, if fierce competition is at your door and you cannot compete, you change or die. And this can happen very very quickly.
Educational establishments are built on historical values which are not directly linked to modern values. There is simply a huge disconnect.
In my opinion, schools should just provide the tools to learn and provide mild guidance in direction. Let the imagination of the kids take the lead and follow the path they take.
:)
Matt Groening said it best. Sitting in neat rows doing what you're told as a child prepares you to sit in neat rows doing what you're told as an adult. School really serves no other purpose.
I spent 8 years in college and loved every second of it, but looking back now I didn't really learn all that much compared to what I learned subsequently, on my own, using the internet. That, coupled with the fact that no one (not ONCE!) has asked to see any of my diplomas makes me think it wasn't the best way to spend that part of my life.
My kids aren't quite old enough yet, but when they are I don't think I want them in school. What a waste of time. A kid can learn a lot more from a well-stocked library, a lab, an internet connection (with certain select filters installed,) and a couple of engaged and committed parents.
Make sure they interact with other kids on a regular basis and get some exercise, and I call that a well-rounded education. Hell, they'll probably learn faster too.
Here's a project for everyone.
Nevermind Generation Y. Imagine the world of Generation Z in fifteen years.
If we're lucky, we will have just extricated our troops from Middle East by then. The U.S. nor any country will be dominant superpower, economically or militarily. Regions will co-operate in self interest of its inhabitants or fail squabbling wasting resources, as energy, water, food and shelter will be dearer than ever. Ninety percent of personal communications (and what we laughingly call personal computing) will be via mobile handheld devices. Seventy to eighty-five percent of all transactions will be electronic. Paper cheques will be extinct. Paper and coins will still be readily available but used very rarely. Local-issued, financial institution-issued and promotional-issued scrip will vie with equally with Federal Reserve Notes. Privacy as we laughingly cling to now will be ancient history. American English will still flourish but begin to be supplanted by a type of Spanish English (not Spanish with occasional English words peppered throughout). Texting English will be a recognized English dialect. Many communities and states will no longer fund public schooling. Many children will take lessons online at home or in board certified pod/facilities and attend testing centers for GEDS. Use of public transportation will be at an all time high, as cost of private vehicle ownership and maintenance will be very cost prohibitive. Manned space flights will continue to be very rare and undertaken by ultra-wealthy private individuals - most government sponsored space missions are accomplished by specialized mechanized robots and satellites. The manned mission to Mars is scrapped. Plans will be on drawing board for terraforming and colonizing Mars and rest of Solar System - but terraforming Mars for human colonization will be a several hundred years process and will still be considered a pipe dream, for now. On Earth the last of the Baby Boomers will be turning sixty years old, but will not be planning to retire. In fact, a good many of the surviving Boomers in their mid-seventies will be not retired but part of the American workforce. Many Americans will be strongly advised, even pressured not to apply to collect Social Security until they reached eighty. Linux and BSD variants will will be most widely used embedded OSes in most devices (Microsoft will have shifted its revenue focus away from OSes, but still derive gagillions of income from online services and applications).
Good article.
Would not be upset to think my kids were in 1957 vs. today; looking back at the last 30 years there has been as much noise as signal in tech developments.
That means - if you always go with the flow, how can you tell if you chose the right signal, not the noise? Giving an education based on the 8-track might have been good in 1970 but people with that as a resource limit would flounder now. Tech changes and faster all the time.
I like using the basics - they work. Schools teach basics.
Socialisation - never worked for me at school. I was always one of the guys to one side, who didn't have friends. What does that say? Nothing is certain. Win some, loose some.
The ideal school should really be tuned / designed for each individual kid, else tyranny must be imposed thus accepted as normal.
What, that's what we've got???
// here in the UK I have to show all my certs and bits of paper; seems that without the employers conclude I'm are lying
Good article.
Would not be upset to think my kids were in 1957 vs. today; looking back at the last 30 years there has been as much noise as signal in tech developments.
That means - if you always go with the flow, how can you tell if you chose the right signal, not the noise? Giving an education based on the 8-track might have been good in 1970 but people with that as a resource limit would flounder now. Tech changes and faster all the time.
I like using the basics - they work. Schools teach basics.
Socialisation - never worked for me at school. I was always one of the guys to one side, who didn't have friends. What does that say? Nothing is certain. Win some, loose some.
The ideal school should really be tuned / designed for each individual kid, else tyranny must be imposed thus accepted as normal.
What, that's what we've got???
// here in the UK I have to show all my certs and bits of paper; seems that without the employers conclude I'm are lying
Good article.
Would not be upset to think my kids were in 1957 vs. today; looking back at the last 30 years there has been as much noise as signal in tech developments.
That means - if you always go with the flow, how can you tell if you chose the right signal, not the noise? Giving an education based on the 8-track might have been good in 1970 but people with that as a resource limit would flounder now. Tech changes and faster all the time.
I like using the basics - they work. Schools teach basics.
Socialisation - never worked for me at school. I was always one of the guys to one side, who didn't have friends. What does that say? Nothing is certain. Win some, loose some.
The ideal school should really be tuned / designed for each individual kid, else tyranny must be imposed thus accepted as normal.
What, that's what we've got???
// here in the UK I have to show all my certs and bits of paper; seems that without the employers conclude I'm are lying
Bob says: "What is it, then, that makes an MIT education worth $34,986? "
Answer: Like most educational institutions, the added-value is (a) individual tutoring by teaching assistants or teachers, (b) tutoring by other students, and (c) being surrounded by students in the same course which creates an environment of learning and socializing.
Those things together make the at-MIT education (or at-Whatever-School) education twice as effective as the Lectures-on-video approach.
Many of the comments reflect the point of view that an online education is somehow defective because it lacks direct face-to-face social interaction. However, it should be pointed out that human social interaction itself (as well as the human workplace), is increasingly becoming online rather than face-to-face. Just look at all the teenagers nowadays who hardly have time to meet each other in person anymore, because they are too busy texting, chatting, and updating their Facebook pages. I can easily imagine a near future in which such kids receive their entire education online, and happily go on to lifelong careers as millionaire Web 3.0 entrepreneurs, with virtually all of their social interactions occurring online as well.
In 100 years, most human beings will be living in individual, honeycomb-like cells (as was remarkably envisioned by E.M. Forster in his 1909 short story "The Machine Stops"), with their brains directly wired into the SuperInternet. But instead of the Machine breaking down, we will continue to evolve as Cyborgs, and in 200 years we will all have become immortal Gods, having uploaded our brains directly into the Machine. In 300 years each human-cum-God will have created his own private Universe to play with, and any further education will obviously be redundant.
Moral of the story: Get a head start, and sign up for that online course now, hehehe!
24 year old software engineer here. I couldn't agree more with you. The disconnect I feel with traditional institutes of learning is incredible.
Take for example academic research and the New York Public Library. My girlfriend, an art historian pursuing her PhD, spends on average 22 hours a week at the NYPL or the New York Historical Society. You think, well, she's doing research, that takes a while. Let's break down those hours:
Hours, Task:
1, Finding material to take out using online database
4, Waiting for retrieval materials (all reference material must be sent up from basement)
2, Scanning through material for relevant
information
4, Photo-copying, printing (microfilm), waiting for speciality copies (rare materials), hand photographing (materials too damaged for photo-copying)
6, Wasted for materials lost, broken microfilm machines, broken photo-copy machines, a**hole librarians, filling out ILLs (Inter-Library Loans), dealing with departmental red tape, being given the "run around"
5, Traveling with the NYC MTA!
So, out of 22 hours, she spends 3 really doing what most of us would consider research. 18 hours (80%) of her time is spent procuring the materials she needs to actually do the real research.
Now, compare that with the amount of time it takes her to find materials at JSTOR [jstor.com], an online archive of thousands of scholarly journals:
10 minutes, Search for a list of keywords
10 minutes, Print documents
The disconnect between the digital and the analog is striking. Every time I waste one of my Saturdays to help her photo-copy, I fantasize about the Google Book Eating(TM) Machine, neatly slicing the binding off of a 200 year old manuscript, scanning it at 600 dpi, tokenizing every word for search and making it freely available for the world.
24 year old software engineer here. I couldn't agree more with you. The disconnect I feel with traditional institutes of learning is incredible.
Take for example academic research and the New York Public Library. My girlfriend, an art historian pursuing her PhD, spends on average 22 hours a week at the NYPL or the New York Historical Society. You think, well, she's doing research, that takes a while. Let's break down those hours:
Hours, Task:
1, Finding material to take out using online database
4, Waiting for retrieval materials (all reference material must be sent up from basement)
2, Scanning through material for relevant
information
4, Photo-copying, printing (microfilm), waiting for speciality copies (rare materials), hand photographing (materials too damaged for photo-copying)
6, Wasted for materials lost, broken microfilm machines, broken photo-copy machines, a**hole librarians, filling out ILLs (Inter-Library Loans), dealing with departmental red tape, being given the "run around"
5, Traveling with the NYC MTA!
So, out of 22 hours, she spends 3 really doing what most of us would consider research. 19 hours (80%) of her time is spent procuring the materials she needs to actually do the real research.
Now, compare that with the amount of time it takes her to find materials at JSTOR [jstor.com], an online archive of thousands of scholarly journals:
10 minutes, Search for a list of keywords
10 minutes, Print documents
The disconnect between the digital and the analog is striking. Every time I waste one of my Saturdays to help her photo-copy, I fantasize about the Google Book Eating(TM) Machine, neatly slicing the binding off of a 200 year old manuscript, scanning it at 600 dpi, tokenizing every word for search and making it freely available for the world.
Bob, I think the brick-and-mortar institutions still have value in the idea that congregating with one's peers in the interest of learning is a Good Thing.
Personally, although I fall into the "bullied in high school" column, I'd not have traded it for home schooling, because I had to learn how to deal with other kids/teenager/young adults, as well as how to express myself coherently (writing and speaking.) It's one thing to write an essay and submit it via a web form. It's quite another to stand up in front of a class and recite it.
Bob, I couldn't agree with you more. When I was in school, I couldn't stand classes where we had to memorize APIs. I couldn't get enough of classes where we focused on how to process information and think critically.
We are now in an information rich society and not an information poor society.
This is interesting, Bob, like many of your articles... but as usual, I suspect that you have found an interesting molehill and assumed that it must be the tip of a world-altering mountain. Sometimes, Bob, a molehill is just a molehill.
To offer a partially-serious rebuttal, I might cynically suggest that the real value of K-12 education is not learning or even socialization, but publicly-provided daycare; the technology which schools need to worry about is therefore the robot babysitter rather than the internet.
Speaking as a parent and someone very "into" technology - there are a few hurdles that block the way:
1. Parents LIKE sending their kids to school because of the daycare concept of it. This allows alot of families to be two working parent families. Many families rely on this income to survive.
2. Looking at society now, I obviously can't trust current parents to teach their children manners, respect, or right from wrong. I don't want these same parents teaching calculus. I guarantee that won't happen.
3. There are way too many single parent households in the country for this to become more than an expanded home-schooling effort.
A more likely scenario to me is that technology education will start as a fringe education that technological parents will give their children because they can and want to. I then see the schools SLOWLY learning that this is happening and then incorporating them into the schools. I think that's where your 30 years will be. 30 years from now technology will be in schools due to the pioneering efforts made by technology parents who either want to give their kids a leg up and who just teach tech to their kids for fun.
Bob,this is the best I have read of yours. It provides a positive "hint" as to how our amazing technology explosion will revolutionize our archaic education system. I was a Xerox planning executive from 1960 until 1987 and experienced all the joys & then frustrations you have written about. But did you know in the 60's, well before the creation of PARC, Xerox formed an education group. Another example of their foresight without results.
As an ancient (32 years in the classroom) teacher, I have seen technology emerge, be embraced, and become integrated into our classes. Yes, education will always be behind the curve, yet we teachers do use email, online discussion groups, web pages, Google apps, photo sharing, SMART boards, and blogs, both with our students and with each other. Surprisingly, I have found parents are not as up on the uses of technology as you (and many others) may think. I email with parents now instead of playing phone tag. When I mention some of our uses of technology to parents at open houses I get many blank, and clueless, stares. Education serves as a convenient whipping boy for the complaints of society. I am amazed by the high level of teacher who is entering the classroom today, and yes, they come prewired to use the technology we have and extend it further and further. Education is changing - slower than many would like - but education reflects society, its wants and its needs, and that is why it is behind the curve.
As an ancient (32 years in the classroom) teacher, I have seen technology emerge, be embraced, and become integrated into our classes. Yes, education will always be behind the curve, yet we teachers do use email, online discussion groups, web pages, Google apps, photo sharing, SMART boards, and blogs, both with our students and with each other. Surprisingly, I have found parents are not as up on the uses of technology as you (and many others) may think. I email with parents now instead of playing phone tag. When I mention some of our uses of technology to parents at open houses I get many blank, and clueless, stares. Education serves as a convenient whipping boy for the complaints of society. I am amazed by the high level of teacher who is entering the classroom today, and yes, they come prewired to use the technology we have and extend it further and further. Education is changing - slower than many would like - but education reflects society, its wants and its needs, and that is why it is behind the curve.
One thing I see as a former educator (got out because of short-sighted administrations, not the kids) is that kids aren't really absorbing what they cut and paste. When I've got a kid who has trouble forming a coherent sentence on his own and he suddenly sounds like Buckley (or Cringley) in his homework, I can sense that something is wrong. The Internet isn't being used as a resource, it's being used as a replacement.
I agree that we need to focus more on teaching kids HOW to learn than we do now, and that's a shortcoming that we're going to be paying for for a long time to come. But there are minimum standards that we have to make sure kids can meet on their own -- and those aren't the standards that most states have in place with their "No Child's Behind Left Untested" programs and their "let's teach the kids how to pass the test and never mind about real life" staff.
The missing link is that just finding information is not sufficient, you must understand it. I realize that there are a significant number of people that are willing to go out and learn what they need to know to understand a topic, but are they in the majority?
I think the schools system is largely useless. I never finished high school. My children are learning not much that I think is worth knowing. I still ended up going to college (late) to earn a BSEE, I loved it. The schools are broken, but we haven't found how to replace the function of teaching understanding. Until that happens, nothing will change. I don't think it is a pure technology solution.
This reminds me of legal research class in Law School. My professor said several times that research was the most imnportant class in Law School because the law was far too vast for anyone to learn all of it. The most important skill was being able to find it. Of course, that was ca. 1976, a few years before the Apple II or the IBM PC. Nexis and Lexis were not available. So we were taught to use West's Digests, Black's Legal Dictionary, Legal Encyclopedias, note cards and copying machines.
Of course, grades and class standing were, and I assume, still are, based on being able to regurgitate black letter law and judicial opinions come exam time.
John wrote:
"I was all quite surprised at all how much ahead they all were. Now, the school is particular about who they admit ... Their standards have more to do with how the kids behaves in the interview process -- whether they have self control and can remain focused and study well. ... I think you are right, a revolution in education is coming."
Those students aren't "ahead" because of technology, but because that private school is able to select - "cherry-pick" - which kids from the community it wants to teach.
What school system -couldn't- get equal results if they were able to bar entry to students who would distract others, or slow the overall pace instruction?
The latest Arthur C. Clarke used to say:
"Before you become too entranced with gorgeous gadgets and mesmerizing video displays, let me remind you that information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, and wisdom is not foresight. Each grows out of the other, and we need them all"
Proper schooling has never been and will never be about amassing information but about what can be accomplished with it to build and create new and original ideas. In the search economy we are currently living, "guidance", or if you prefer, "mentoring", is more needed then ever, lest the next generation be drowned and dominated by a sea of information they lack the wisdom to assimilate and make good use.
Yes, a dynamic society.
A search society.
Check out the original principles of Maria Montessori - that enabled 'developmentally challenged' students to excel - and see if you don't agree that the idea of self-organized development and education might not be just the thing for these times.
"-"
You wrote "What is it, then, that makes an MIT education worth $34,986? Is it the seminars that aren't on the web? Faculty guidance? Research experience? Getting drunk and falling in the Charles River without your pants? Right now it is all those things plus a dimensionless concept of educational quality."
I'm an old guy, late 60's, and my last educational experience was engineering graduate school at Cal. As engineering schools go, Cal is on a par with MIT but less expensive. One of the things that was most important to me at Cal was networking. My research advisor could call up a former student at a world-class laboratory and arrange a summer job for me. I became acquainted with professors who were world-class scientists and that association was important for career development. Their reputations did not come from being associated with Cal but from their publications in respected refereed journals. This is still the case. "Publish or perish" is not a bad thing, it is how you establish yourself as a scientist on the world stage by showing that your work is first class.
Maybe it's just because I'm an old guy but I see too many young scientists and engineers who just throw their problem into a computer without understanding the problem in the first place. The best ones, sadly too few, and still do a back-of-the-envelope calculation to gain some insight to their problem. Only then is it appropriate to put it into a computer code to obtain a detailed result that they can feel confident is not GIGO.
Is something similar operative for history majors? It wouldn't surprise me.
And, yes, I love Google and Wikipedia. The only way you can get my computers away from me is to pry them out of my cold dead hands. You're right about texting. I'm too damn old.
In 2001 I taught French at a community college. The class consisted of a home-schooled 17-year-old who was illiterate, a couple of 30-year-olds who knew how to learn, and a bunch of 18- to 23-year-olds. After that experience, I dubbed the young ones the one-click-generation. They were incapable of studying. They expected to be spoon-fed the information and to be able to then regurgitate French. They did not know how to actively participate in their own learning process. If they couldn't get the info they needed in a few clicks, they wouldn't or didn't know how to expend the effort.
I am no technophobe. I'm a tech writer, Internet entrepreneur and geekette. I've railed on friends my age (40s) for being so clueless about the Internet and computers. But the picture you paint is dire. Will our children become a society of Plato's cave allegory prisoners, only able to understand the world through the machines they are chained to? What will happen when they turn around? They have to turn around. Children, even under direction, can't get every educational experience they need from a computer. Computers can't teach them _how_ to learn, and they can't teach them that they _should_ learn.
I almost did an online computer programming degree at CSU Bakersfield. It was the complete four-year degree. Computers are perfect for teaching adults skills that are measurable.
But the passive nature of learning from a screen cannot work for kids. In this generation, will a quick scan of the wikipedia article on the Enlightenment be enough to prepare tomorrow's leaders?
My nephew, who is 8, is being home-schooled, much to my chagrin. His mother has a high-school education and relies heavily on high-quality videos and computer apps for things like supplemental math exercises. The kid can spout more facts than other kids his age, but he has no ideas. Ideas are what civilization is about.
The educational system definitely needs to stop fighting technology, but more importantly, it desperately needs to start incorporating it effectively and imaginatively into education. But we must never hand over teaching of our kids to machines.
In a perfect world, where all things are equal, your theory might hold up. But we live in a far from perfect world. And, from my perch, here is where your theory falls short.
In order for this to work, you assume all families can afford at least four computers per child during the course of their child's education. Many families can barely afford one computer, muchless one per child.
While the new technology may be the portal for information, this new technology has already proven itself an inadequate tool for on a broad range of social issues. Email and texting take the "person" out of personal interaction. They remove the smiles, the frowns, the body language out of inter-personal communication. It is solely up to the reader to know what the writer intended to say. Get it wrong and you have a potential recipe for disaster.
Not all learning requires or can be enhanced by a computer. We, as a society, have become so fixated on the concept that "everyone needs a college degree" to be successful that we have lost sight of the many skills that are learned OJT. I want to see you Google yourself to become a Master Plumber, a Master Carpenter or one of the other construction trades, all a necessary part of a functional society.
We have brainiacked ourselves right into a recession, We keep telling our young people you can't get a good job without first running up a huge financial debt to get a degree then only to discover on the other end that we have shipped all the jobs offshore.
Then, too, there is the matter of teaching ethics. Just this past week, we have witnessed a breach of privacy with the passport files of three Presidential candidates. Computers may be the portals for information. But there is a responsibility that comes with that freedom. "Just because you can doesn't mean that you should!"
No, teaching the next generation to merely pass a test (like they do in Florida) is not the answer. But turning everyone into a Google maniac isn't going to get it done, either. We might all become Bobo wannabees singing the lyric "I still haven't found what I looking for".
I think colleges and universities are in the danger of being supplanted. Because of tax laws and alumni gifts, these institutions are now large palace complexes. It now probably costs more to maintain the infrastructure then it costs to run the whole place when I went to college.
At some point, the huge cost of attending college (now over $50,000 a year for tution, room and board) will be unsustainable. The collapse will come very quickly and be replaced by other institutions that are found acceptable. Like in other collapses (think of the changes in how stocks are traded today), technology will play a big part in the change.
The same Moores Law that is ushering in these changes may have even more profound effects in ten years or so. I noticed that some outfit has time alloted with one of IBM's biggest computers to see if they can pass the Turing Test this year. What do you think will happen to education when the computer the kid is working with has human level smarts or as good a simulation of as not to matter? That may not be a bad thing.
Tech will be bringing changes but the current problems with government schools are totally unrelated and are of so much greater importance we should forget about tech except in ways we can use it to destroy the current system.
Yes I said destroy. The current system can't be fixed, reformed, updated or modernized. The sooner it can be destroyed the sooner we stop destroying more children.
And no, just letting them sit around texting each other, playing Xbox and playing with Google and their MySpace page gets you the current crop of brain damaged kids. They don't read books because they can't read. They can puzzle out text messages because the input methods are so slow teh other side has enough time to work it out. But their reading speed is so slow that reading longer texts, like a book or longer articles online, is painful... so they don't do it. If we as adults rationalize (or allow the kids to rationalize) that it isn't a problem because reading is dead we are just creating little brain damaged globs of protoplasm that will have a hard time holding a job at McDonalds.... except we probably won't still HAVE McDonalds when they grow up, it will be an almost fully automated process with at most one or two semi skilled workers monitoring and maintaining the system.
You must teach em basic skills because learning how to read, write and do basic math isn't the sort of thing they will pick up on Google. Then you must teach them how to learn, especially in the age of Google because so much of what you find online is wrong. Finally you have to teach them how to THINK, otherwise they are useless and will be unable to compete against China and India.
But first we have to destroy the government schools because their goals are entirely different. First off, mandatory public education was started to keep kids out of the workforce, not to educate them. This still shows in the tendency of schools to focus more on a day care function than education. Second (again, go read the writings of the leading lights in the public education movement... if you can still read) they were designed to create mindless regimented drones to work in factories that no longer exist. Leader types (upper class children) were of course expected to continue to attend the existing private schools and learn how to think and lead.
But most important, government schools exist to instill the attitudes of dependence upon the State that make our semi socialist welfate state possible.
As a 25 year veteran technology Trainer/Professor I agree with Alma re: Understanding. Focus must shift from regurgitation (both as student and teacher I have seen the emphasis on not just rote memorization, but in gaming the teacher - by finding out what he expects to be memorized and spit back - even penailizing the student if they did not spit back exactly what the professor wanted, right, insightful or not)
I think that classes, assignments and testing should shift to weighing and analyzing, not rote memorization. In a college psych class we studied a variety of experiments and results, then at test time were given scenarios and had to defend (or not) the approach and conclusion.
I agree that some type of "standardized" measurement of ability and performance will be needed. Heck we could use that in our IT shop - few if any managers know what their staff know - or should know.
These issues have effected the fine arts as well. Graphic design using Photo Shop has revolutionized commercial art. But is basically just a tool. The one of a kind, painted with actual paint has a quality that will never be replaced by digitalized printed art.
The same thing with music, it ultimately is performed by real musicians. It is ehanced by computers, but not replaced.
Educators need to understand technology is a tool that can enhance, but not eliminate real teaching.
Technology is a tool. Remember the fountain pen replace the quill pen. I bet that created quite a stir too.
The history of humans is constantly affected by technology. Each advance has also been critized by the previous generation.
But they are all just tools. And a poor workman always blames his tool. (wink, wink).
These issues have effected the fine arts as well. Graphic design using Photo Shop has revolutionized commercial art. But is basically just a tool. The one of a kind, painted with actual paint has a quality that will never be replaced by digitalized printed art.
The same thing with music, it ultimately is performed by real musicians. It is ehanced by computers, but not replaced.
Educators need to understand technology is a tool that can enhance, but not eliminate real teaching.
Technology is a tool. Remember the fountain pen replace the quill pen. I bet that created quite a stir too.
The history of humans is constantly affected by technology. Each advance has also been critized by the previous generation.
But they are all just tools. And a poor workman always blames his tool. (wink, wink).
These issues have effected the fine arts as well. Graphic design using Photo Shop has revolutionized commercial art. But is basically just a tool. The one of a kind, painted with actual paint has a quality that will never be replaced by digitalized printed art.
The same thing with music, it ultimately is performed by real musicians. It is ehanced by computers, but not replaced.
Educators need to understand technology is a tool that can enhance, but not eliminate real teaching.
Technology is a tool. Remember the fountain pen replace the quill pen. I bet that created quite a stir too.
The history of humans is constantly affected by technology. Each advance has also been critized by the previous generation.
But they are all just tools. And a poor workman always blames his tool. (wink, wink).
These issues have effected the fine arts as well. Graphic design using Photo Shop has revolutionized commercial art. But is basically just a tool. The one of a kind, painted with actual paint has a quality that will never be replaced by digitalized printed art.
The same thing with music, it ultimately is performed by real musicians. It is ehanced by computers, but not replaced.
Educators need to understand technology is a tool that can enhance, but not eliminate real teaching.
Technology is a tool. Remember the fountain pen replace the quill pen. I bet that created quite a stir too.
The history of humans is constantly affected by technology. Each advance has also been critized by the previous generation.
But they are all just tools. And a poor workman always blames his tool. (wink, wink).
Interesting article but I take issue with one point:
plagiarism is plagiarism whether from a book or the web. Nothing wrong with using a Cringley paragraph providing it's acknowledged.
As a victim of our school system, who went on to be a relatively successful individual in spite of it, rather than because of it, I have been saying the school system is badly broken for over 30 years. It is primarily a day care system, with its main goal being "socialization", and education way down its list of priorities. Government schools are closer to a prison system than an educational system. It brings out the worst in everyone. If it's abolished, good riddance. Anyone who defends it is closing their eyes to the facts.
The education I received 30 odd years ago was not great. They didn't teach me, they recited the same old thing, year after year, just to a different group of kids.
Most teachers are so set in their ways that they've become frozen in time. They do see all this technology as something to be banned.
I only had one class that actually was not so much scripted as directed. I felt like that class, philosophy, challenged me to think for myself. It didn't do so much for my IT career but it taught me to think differently.
I've told my daughter on more than one occasion that if she isn't going into a scientific or engineering field, she'll never use anything greater than basic algebra. In 20 years of IT I've only needed the most rudimentary math skills. As a discipline, it is fine but as a skill that is used every day, not so much.
To force a person that has no aptitude for math to keep on the treadmill is torture. That is something that should be banned by international treaty.
Having worked with educational types off and on for the last decade, I have to say they are some of the least technically educated people on the planet. I've had 60 year old non-teacher men learn the web quicker than trying to get a professor to understand using a browser's home button. You'd have thought I asked her to calculate a moon trajectory in her head.
I think the problem is they actually believe they are the only valid conduit for all learning and that if it doesn't flow through them, it isn't an education.
They need this wakeup call. It isn't about teaching to the test that proves the test material is both valid and necessary, it is about preparing young people to deal with reality and life. I don't know about your job, but I don't do any home work and I eat what I want for lunch.
As a Gen X parent of teenagers, I can only say its about time.
Bill Gates recent visit to Washington, 2 Million Minutes documentary ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS_QENuOYL8 ) and now this article. Maybe the US might actually start talking about this.
Yup. I, too, have been saying the school system sucks since - well, since I was in school forty years ago. And when I went back to college a few years ago, it was exactly the same. Hadn't changed in forty years - except I was learning computer operating systems - but not much different than when I was learning computers in the late 70's.
One of these days, somebody will marry some AI software, some teaching software, the ability to search the Net and manage the results effectively, and come up with an automated teaching machine that will obsolete teachers completely. It could be done next year if somebody with some imagination invested in a company to do so.
Education and training in general is probably a half trillion dollar a year market worldwide. The next IBM or Microsoft is going to come from some company that figures out how to do it right.
Seymour Papert wrote in his 1993 books that though it is impossible for us to imagine traditional schools going away, it was just as impossible for us to imagine the USSR going away and yet that happened. He claimed that the fate of schools would be similar and for similar reasons, predicting the stuff mentioned in this column.
Interesting article - but you're right on the dot.
In today's globalized economy, outsourcing is an issue not because we don't have quality students at home, but because companies can get cheaper workers who supposedly have the same skills - never mind that the educational system is different. (From what I understand, some of the educational systems highly encourage plagurism, cheating, and such - or have a far lower bar to achieving the same degree.) So just saying you have a Bachelors degree (or a Masters or even a Doctorate) may not mean much of anything when comparing two people in that respect - it comes down to what does the person really know and can they do the job, and presently we're failing in both education and the work place to make the correct identification.
But we're also having the trouble of technology in the classroom - yes, I do agree with what you're saying, but part of why cellphones are banned from the classroom is to help students keep from cheating (texting, IM'ing, e-mailing, etc. answers back and forth). So there's merit on both sides in that respect.
That all said, my own education was quite good until the college level, where I pursued a degree in Computer Science - a degree that I have come to see, regardless of institution, as a 'junk' degree b/c the education system behind Computer Science dwells solely in the theory at near every institution. Part of this is just the fact that Computer Science as a field needs to grow up, and so do the programmers. We really need degrees in Software Engineering, and we need to direct more Computer Science students into Computer Engineering - a much better degree for programmers.
My prime point in mentioning this is that you can even see this spectacular failure in the computer oriented curriculums - no degree is safe. Though, at least Engineers and Accountants have some safety in real certifications for their fields (e.g. CPA, engineering certification tests, etc.) - and no, vendor certifications (MS, Oracle, Cisco, Red Hat, SuSE, etc.) and testing center certifications (e.g. BrainBench, etc.) are not the answer either - they are just as much a joke and problem as the education system.
Ah, and that is precisely where the school systems fail. They are preponderantly about amassing information and regurgitating it - and it is the extremely rare teacher who shows us how to USE it.
We are a homeschooling family because we want our children to be hungry for knowledge - to understand that learning is an all the time, everywhere process - not a set aside time with a countdown to recess or the last bell. We want to teach wisdom (in life and in technology choices); we want to develop curiousity; we want to completely disassociate learning from a desk; we want to be our childrens' primary mentors.
And yes, we are Blackberry parents who keep in touch with our peers via IM, text messages and camera phones. It is an exciting time to be raising children. Difficult, of couse, but when has it not been difficult to raise children?
I agree wholeheartedly --- however, don't think that the forces of traditional education are going to go by the wayside without kicking and screaming. Witness (for example) California's new bill that will mandate that home-schoolers have to be taught by a CERTIFIED TEACHER (aka a member of the California Teachers Association).
As usual, unions end up being inhibitors to evolution.
Public schools across the country are not providing the value expected with the amount of money we spend on education. Students are moving faster and faster to mediocrity while teacher and administrators become and entrenched and well pensioned calls of bureaucrats.
Bill Gates isn't helping really. He is still pumping millions and millions into the same failed system. If he really wants an educated populace, he would help break the government monopoly running our schools.
It is time to stop funding the bureaucracies and start funding the child. Let's empower parents to do what is best for their child, if that is online, in a private school, homeschool or remaining in a public school. Parents know better how their child learns than a government bureaucrat.
Public schooling hasn't changed in the past hundred years. If my grandmother walked into a classroom today she'd recognize it as a place of learning. Might even spot the same textbook she used, too.
Yes, kids use computers every day in school, but how many of them are any where near competent in basic typing skills. I've gone back and forth with my middle schooler's teachers on this basic fact. They let sixth graders loose in so called "tech classes" packed with the latest desk top machines but the kids have never taken a typing class and unless they are in a business track in high school, never will. How can you expect kids to excel in new technology when the most basic form of I/O is the key board?
Our educational system will continue as is, BECAUSE public employee unions will continue to use their sway with politicians to not breakup the monopoly that they currently have. Our elected officials will have to to take the heat to make a change, which may happen on a local level, but then state government (pushed by teacher's unions) will step in and trump local control of the educational system.
>>>Steve Jobs rejects the idea of Apple making or distributing e-books because he says people don't read books.
Baloney. He also ridiculed flash MP3 players and video on iPods. Gee, guess what happened next?
For The Record: Apple and eBooks
http://mikecane2008.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/for-the-record-apple-and-ebooks/
And you're still right on two counts, Cringely:
1) Apple should embed video chips for fast en/de-coding
2) Apple should buy Adobe
Teachers are the buggy whips of the 21st century.
As most know, change rarely if ever comes without friction. Human being have always adapted and will continue. One of the modern tools we use during our attempt at adaptation is writing about what we see. Regardless of our observations and opinions which usually border on extremes, we will find a way to move forward whether it takes 30 years or longer.
"Steve Jobs rejects the idea of Apple making or distributing e-books because he says people don't read books. He's right, book readers are older. Young readers graze. They search. Look how they watch TV. Steve didn't say people are stupid or we're all going to Hell in a handbasket. He just said we don't read books."
Bosh.
What does not reading books have to do with the non-utility of an ebook reader? The term "ebook reader" is understood far too narrowly if it literally only refers to "books."
My god, just porting travel and outdoor guidebooks to an ebook format provides a sufficient economic justification for them.
Steve Jobs is either out-of-touch or simply misdirecting the competition. he has already built an ebook reader -- the iPhone -- and now only has to make the screen larger.
The only problem with this whole assessment is that learning is a social activity. Homeschooling has two major shortcomings: qualified teachers and socialization. I concur with one of the other commenters who suggested your got MIT to meet your peers. Amen.
The users of "social software" (I count myself as one) need to remember that most jobs require humans to be social, face to face.
A couple of interesting throwaway comments in the article that nobody really seems to have picked up on:
"...graduated from nowhere with the proven ability to design time machines..."
and "..cribbing from Cringely.."
The demonstration proof is gradually finding its way into schools thanks to IT technology: my son, for instance, can demonstrate that he has the skills to produce a theatre brochure by producing one, something that would not have been possible when I went to school.
The larger picture here is something I think of as 'the death of theory': all the broad-brush half-true generalisations that I had to learn at school because the human brain just didn't have enough capacity to store the little details. Well, thanks to Google, now it does, and we don't have to be content with generalising and theorising any more: we can model and simulate the future: we can examine and analyse the past in detail.
Literary theory is on the way out, and I expect scientific theory to follow suit, starting with the softer social sciences and eventually reaching physics at the end. At that point (in 100 years?) we can say "Forget theory: this is what actually happens. Either do it or simulate it."
Agree.
The internet is accelerating a process that was started with the availability of cheap (to the working person) books.
At my comp (UK equiv. to US high school) I had a number of teachers who banned/prevented the class from having the course text book. Their thinking was that they would look bad if we knew more than them - that really is the mentality you are dealing with with a lot of teachers in the UK.
Im planning on making sure my kids can get through the Countdown to Mathematics Vol 1 and 2 - the material and structure is much better than the average UK teacher would put together.
Education in the UK is just as expensive (probably more so) and inefficient as the US - a bunch of overpaid child minders.
The freedom to homeschool my child means PhotoShop becomes part of the curriculum. Learning math can come from a variety of sources including games, The Teaching Company and text books.
In today's world, we no longer teach, love and respect our children; we sentence them to institutions for 8 hours (or longer) each day. Everyone has to master a specific skill set to an artificial baseline in order to graduate.
My child actually does read books because of how I structure learning in my home.
As for the worn-out whine about socialization and homeschooling, let's get past it. My child isn't being socialized by peers to hate her parents, wear black clothes, demand everything under the sun, or learn how to cut herself.
Schools have outlasted their effectiveness in today's society. Change is a foot.
I am also one of those tuition paying parents ($30,000) who sees my child learning from adjuncts who, too often, have no clue how or what to teach.
The freedom to homeschool my child means PhotoShop becomes part of the curriculum. Learning math can come from a variety of sources including games, The Teaching Company and text books.
In today's world, we no longer teach, love and respect our children; we sentence them to institutions for 8 hours (or longer) each day. Everyone has to master a specific skill set to an artificial baseline in order to graduate.
My child actually does read books because of how I structure learning in my home.
As for the worn-out whine about socialization and homeschooling, let's get past it. My child isn't being socialized by peers to hate her parents, wear black clothes, demand everything under the sun, or learn how to cut herself.
Schools have outlasted their effectiveness in today's society. Change is a foot.
I am also one of those tuition paying parents ($30,000) who sees my child learning from adjuncts who, too often, have no clue how or what to teach.
The freedom to homeschool my child means PhotoShop becomes part of the curriculum. Learning math can come from a variety of sources including games, The Teaching Company and text books.
In today's world, we no longer teach, love and respect our children; we sentence them to institutions for 8 hours (or longer) each day. Everyone has to master a specific skill set to an artificial baseline in order to graduate.
My child actually does read books because of how I structure learning in my home.
As for the worn-out whine about socialization and homeschooling, let's get past it. My child isn't being socialized by peers to hate her parents, wear black clothes, demand everything under the sun, or learn how to cut herself.
Schools have outlasted their effectiveness in today's society. Change is a foot.
I am also one of those tuition paying parents ($30,000) who sees my child learning from adjuncts who, too often, have no clue how or what to teach.
The freedom to homeschool my child means PhotoShop becomes part of the curriculum. Learning math can come from a variety of sources including games, The Teaching Company and text books.
In today's world, we no longer teach, love and respect our children; we sentence them to institutions for 8 hours (or longer) each day. Everyone has to master a specific skill set to an artificial baseline in order to graduate.
My child actually does read books because of how I structure learning in my home.
As for the worn-out whine about socialization and homeschooling, let's get past it. My child isn't being socialized by peers to hate her parents, wear black clothes, demand everything under the sun, or learn how to cut herself.
Schools have outlasted their effectiveness in today's society. Change is a foot.
I am also one of those tuition paying parents ($30,000) who sees my child learning from adjuncts who, too often, have no clue how or what to teach.
My daughter of four, just started school. She has always been a very bright little girl, talked an an early age, is beginning to read, and is great with counting and numbers. She has also always been a very sweet and nice little girl. Suddenly she is talking back, fighting, refusing to do things, and throwing tantrums. My mother came over to watch the kids for a while, so that I could take my wife out. When we returned, the house was in an uproar. My mother had told my daughter to do some small thing, which my daughter refused to do. when she was sent to her room, as a punishment, she ordered my mother "Get out of my house - you don't live here"
I can give many other examples; but they all follow the same pattern. This has hurt my relationship with my daughter, because I must now often act as disciplinarian, something which had formerly almost never been required. What are they teaching in those places, and what are they doing to my daughter?
I am starting to seriously consider home schooling, either from books, on-line resources, or programmed courses. My older brother warned me about this, as he had similar experiences with his son, when the boy started school, and advised me not to enroll my daughter. I thouht he was making too big a deal of this, and am shocked by the degree, and the speed of the changes that have occurred in my daughter. Fortunately, there are options today. From what I know of my brothers experiences, homeschooling his children, my daughter will spend less time learning, regain her former good humor, and improve her relationship with me. This one is a no brainer.
I disagree with Bob Cringely on this one.
I went to public schools in New York City and I received a very good education. I know this because when I went to college it was clear that a lot of my fellow freshmen just weren't exposed to the subjects they needed to succeed.
School is about learning, not baby sitting. It should be about challenging each student to go beyond their comfort zone. Granted, not every school does this.
Just as there are mixed public schools, there are mixed performance parochial schools. My sister had to pull her children from a parochial school because of their dismal subject coverage. When they wen to public they were really far behind.
It's a mixed bag - shop around - but certainly don't just believe one is far better.
A school is not about Google search. Let's just start with schools producing students that can put coherent sentences into paragraphs. There are so many posts on-line (maybe not here so much) where they just don't know the difference between there and their, or then and than. Hey, it all passes the spell checker!
You can Google search mortgage rates, but you can't teach effective debt and wealth management.
And don't get me started on the whole nonsense over science.
Mike
Cringely does wander a lot, but he's fairly accurate. What he doesn't do, however, is uncover a couple of really powerful undercurrents.
The first undercurrent has to do with kids opting out. They've been doing that for years, since the 1950's, when "believe in it" education was phased out and replaced with a soulless crazy-quilt of "instructional" ideas. At this point, young folks have acheived a position of fearlessness that makes it necessary for educators to "sell" what they have to teach. And I mean sell. Really get learners in tune with what's in it for them -- and have this be justifiably worthwhile. That's not much of a stress, but many of us don't have much to sell. Once, when I asked a room full of social studies teachers in preparation just why it's important to learn about civic matters and history, there was silence for nearly four minutes. Finally, one of them opened his "Social Science Teaching" textbook and began to read the paragraph about that in the preface to the book. Ugly. It's high time we focused on WHAT we want youngsters to know and make it available to them under guidance. Then again, we've abdicated there. They already have their authorities. Rock groups, hiphoppers, Wikipedia and Google. Oh, goodie! The young Chinese students have Confucious, Lao-Tse and Sun-Tsu, and maybe even Chairman Mao and the Party to guide them -- and pay attention to them, too, as well as to Adam Smith. Our youngsters have Mick Jagger, Ice Cube (and Tupac), articles written by anyone who self-appoints as an expert, and a search engine that collaborates with foreign governments. Don't mess with us. Time for us to get serious.
Second -- folks aren't particularly focused on HOW folks learn. Technology comes and goes, but users go on and adapt from one to the other, nearly seamlessly. By what quickly-evolving set of processes do people seek information, knowledge, and wisdom? Not to mention our several incompetent delivery systems (home school, autodidactics, schools and the military and prisons), it seems that a bit of understanding of how tools are used is interwoven with what they are used to do.
Cringely makes me cringe. But he's started an important train of thought.
Cringely does wander a lot, but he's fairly accurate. What he doesn't do, however, is uncover a couple of really powerful undercurrents.
The first undercurrent has to do with kids opting out. They've been doing that for years, since the 1950's, when "believe in it" education was phased out and replaced with a soulless crazy-quilt of "instructional" ideas. At this point, young folks have acheived a position of fearlessness that makes it necessary for educators to "sell" what they have to teach. And I mean sell. Really get learners in tune with what's in it for them -- and have this be justifiably worthwhile. That's not much of a stress, but many of us don't have much to sell. Once, when I asked a room full of social studies teachers in preparation just why it's important to learn about civic matters and history, there was silence for nearly four minutes. Finally, one of them opened his "Social Science Teaching" textbook and began to read the paragraph about that in the preface to the book. Ugly. It's high time we focused on WHAT we want youngsters to know and make it available to them under guidance. Then again, we've abdicated there. They already have their authorities. Rock groups, hiphoppers, Wikipedia and Google. Oh, goodie! The young Chinese students have Confucious, Lao-Tse and Sun-Tsu, and maybe even Chairman Mao and the Party to guide them -- and pay attention to them, too, as well as to Adam Smith. Our youngsters have Mick Jagger, Ice Cube (and Tupac), articles written by anyone who self-appoints as an expert, and a search engine that collaborates with foreign governments. Don't mess with us. Time for us to get serious.
Second -- folks aren't particularly focused on HOW folks learn. Technology comes and goes, but users go on and adapt from one to the other, nearly seamlessly. By what quickly-evolving set of processes do people seek information, knowledge, and wisdom? Not to mention our several incompetent delivery systems (home school, autodidactics, schools and the military and prisons), it seems that a bit of understanding of how tools are used is interwoven with what they are used to do.
Cringely makes me cringe. But he's started an important train of thought.
I worry that if we as a society become grazers and searchers, seeking only quick answers in the world of instant gratification, knowledge, science, and learning as a whole will suffer.
Will we be satisfied by merely a cursory overview? Will we lose the ability to ask "why?" and accept an answer at face value? Will we lose our drive to learn and discover? What will prevent us from continuing the expansion of human knowledge?
Will our reliability on the first page of results offered by search engines mean we stop questioning the information we find, opening the possibility for larger manipulation of "facts" and news? Or will we still seek to learn more and gain a greater understanding of issues and keep the information providers in check?
While I strongly encourage the use of new technologies to improve education and learning, on-line courses and technologies that eliminate group face-to-face interactions limit the free-flow exchange of ideas and questions that would otherwise occur.
On-line classes may enable a student to accelerate their learning or avoid classroom distractors, but it prevents the social interactions that spa
Your rhetorical question:
The quality of the contacts and the people you meet while you're there.
I'm not convinced that the strength of the relationships you make on Facebook 3.0 will be right up there with the strength of a relationship forged by falling into the Charles River with or without your pants but with your pals.