On the most recent nationwide science test, about a third of fourth graders and a fifth of high school seniors scored at or above the level the federal Department of Education calls proficient, according to results released on Tuesday.
And, a new book, discussed at length again in the NYTimes,
So, we conclude that Americans hardly do any studying, hardly learn anything in college, and can hardly read and write when they graduate from high school.
Of course, that's an exaggeration, but when our noble society can't agree that climate is changing anomalously, or whether vaccines cause autism, or whether evolution occurred, then it's time to take the problem seriously. The idea that the wealthiest country at any given time is vulnerable to becoming lazy and self-satisfied is not exactly new. It was written about even by Romans at the height of the Roman Empire (e.g., in satires by Juvenal, at about 115 AD).“Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses” (University of Chicago Press) by a professor at New York University and another at the University of Virginia, attempts to answer questions [about how much students learn and how they spend their time] in a systematic way — and, as its title suggests, its findings suggest reason for concern.
In the book, and in an accompanying study being released Tuesday, the authors followed more than 2,300 undergraduates at two dozen universities, and concluded that 45 percent “demonstrated no significant gains in critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and written communications during the first two years of college.”
So, we conclude that Americans hardly do any studying, hardly learn anything in college, and can hardly read and write when they graduate from high school.
Now, universities are dropping programs that 'don't pay', while pouring money into the 'real' subjects like science while visions of overhead dance in their heads.
We recently saw that to qualify as a teacher in Scandinavian countries, you must graduate in the top third of your university class. By contrast, who do you think populates our schools of education?
We need to insist that students actually do work and come to class, we must be able to fail them if they don't, to stop having students evaluate whether they 'like' our classes, and to have teacher trainees learn more about science than about how to make science bulletin boards. We need to de-emphasize the precious 'research' that we flatter ourselves is so important, and return faculty to a concentration on teaching. And if we can afford 90" TVs for every bathroom in the house, we can afford to pay more taxes to pay teachers enough to encourage good students to become them. There needs to be a sense of seriousness about this, because in case you haven't noticed, improving K-12 will take 13 years to bear fruit!
Just because a society is technological or scientific doesn't guarantee that it will be a good society, and the history of empires suggests otherwise. But the odds would at least favor a better quality of life for its citizens. Maybe if research scientists weren't paid so munificently to do incremental, me-too work, and teachers were paid more to build our capability future, these problems would be ameliorated.
But probably not. Probably, we are so used to our luxuries that we will let ourselves sink slowly into history.
5 comments:
"We need to de-emphasize the precious 'research' that we flatter ourselves is so important, and return faculty to a concentration on teaching."
Doesn't sound much like the Penn State model to me.
Right. It has to do with what the mission of a university is or should be, and how its various objectives should be balanced.
Except those of us with tons of teaching experience haven't published enough to even get shortlisted for a job, much less actually hired. In order to change the model of teaching at universities, you need to change the model of hiring.
Amen. Thanks for that. I am curious what you think about the importance of teaching at the university level. Specifically, there is such a massive emphasis on publishing at research universities and, from what I understand, very little emphasis on quality teaching, engaging students, etc. While research is important, I question this system of priorities, especially when I speak to fellow graduate students who bemoan a future of teaching "lazy" undergrads. They speak as if it were some kind of cruel punishment. I don't understand this attitude. Shouldn't we enjoy sharing our knowledge and helping students to explore their world? Don't we remember what it was like to have an inspiring professor?
In a capitalistic, overtly competitive society such as ours, in an age of famous scientific discoveries, and technological advances tied to industry, we have raised the status of 'research' over the years. Most research is hardly worth the paper it's printed on (as citation counts clearly show), although to be fair (and why not!?), we don't know ahead of time what will be very important amongst the chaff.
But clearly an important reason for the R1 infatuation with research, that is the clearest victory for Soviet communism, is the fact that universities want the research money (this is a victory for the Russians because it was triggered by their success with Sputnik, and it's degraded our university education system).
We've dropped the ball on education well before college, of course, and current lifestyle (due to TV or pick your favorite devil) don't encourage lots of schoolwork at any level. Whether undergrads are really any lazier than we were is debated, though the recent study we posted about suggests that they at least do less work.
Teaching is scheduled work, and it's tough because you're knowledge is on the line all the time in front of a large group that you'd like to impress. Much less attractive than the fun and less structured workday in research. That's part of why it is viewed as punishment, but as long as overhead and coup-counting in terms of publications is the gold standard, you can't blame faculty members for going for the gold.
Post a Comment