

Our superficial scholars - sajid
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/21/AR2011012104554_pf.html

======
candre717
>>>This narrowing has resulted in a curiously unprepared and superficial pre-
professionalism.

I don't take these kinds of essays seriously anymore.

Rhodes scholars are chosen primarily because of their accomplishments, as a
result of being widely successful in a field. What the author criticizes -
single-mindedness - is what catapulted these bright stars in the first place,
because people, like the author, in positions of authority and influence said,
"Brilliant. She is a Physics Olympiad winner or he is a nationally recognized
pianist. Let us reward them."

The same authors and leaders that lament the direction the nation's youths are
taken have their hand in creating the very system they criticize. Why not look
inward for the changes they can make rather than putting the microscope on
other people? In the case of the Rhodes committee, they shouldn't even look at
grades anymore. There are other ways to judge creativity and scholarship.
Heavy grade focus already pushes students at top colleges into a narrow-minded
pursuit of "excellence." And, yet Rhodes and other prestigious institutions
reaffirm that idea. This is just an example - a rough one at that - but I hope
it communicates the point. Don't pay lip service if you aren't willing to be
part of the solution (and I mean taking action).

------
archgoon
Sounds more like a problem with their selection process than anything else.
Rhodes scholars are by definition not representative of students. It may well
be the case that people who want to be Rhodes scholars are no longer the
people the committee wants to be Rhode scholars.

~~~
iqster
Good point. I applied in Canada about a decade ago. I do remember they
mentioned at that time that they had toned down the "excellence in athletics"
category. They now merely required participation and demonstration of
sportsman spirit. This struck me as quite a reasonable decision on the part of
the selection committee.

On a separate note, the Rhodes selection process is extremely competitive.
While I didn't get in, I felt that just the process of applying forced me to
self-reflect on my capabilities and accomplishments. I ended up making some
positive changes in my life as a direct result of what I learned during the
application process - sounds like the YC application eh? Heh Heh!

~~~
colincsl
I totally agree and think that even if these awards aren't going to the
"right" people it is still a worthwhile process for all of those involved. I
was nominated by my school for the Goldwater scholarship and also applied to
the NSF Graduate Fellowship and found both to be incredibly worthwhile. It
wasn't until I wrote (and rewrote) my Goldwater essays that I had a good grasp
of what I really wanted to do with life. Sure, at that point I had been doing
'research' and other creative activities, but I had never forced myself to
really self-reflect and figure out how my interests come together.

------
kenjackson
This is just a right-wing attack on education, disguised as genuine critique.
Heather Wilson is a right-wing politician who is making false complaints.
She's running for the Senate in 2012.

Lets take this line, "An outstanding biochemistry major wants to be a doctor
and supports the president's health-care bill but doesn't really know why."

Really? I find that amazingly hard to believe. What I suspect is far closer to
the truth is that this person supports the health-care bill for a reason that
isn't consistent with why Heather wants to repeal it. Here's a quote from one
of her letters requesting donations for her Senate run:

"Repeal and replace Obamacare with market-based reforms that are much more
effective at controlling the skyrocketing cost of healthcare without
compromising choice and quality;"

While its important to judge writing on its merits, outside of appeals to
authority. It is important to know the history and motivation of the author.
Especially when the piece really has no data, and is just subjective anecdotal
conjecture.

------
wisty
I think that the problem is students are being taught "how to think", not
"what to think".

Back in the bad old days, students crammed lots of facts in into their heads.
That gave them an understanding of how the world worked, how it has worked in
the past, and a solid platform for thinking about how it might change.

Now, students learn "how to think". Of course, nobody can teach that. So
instead, they learn how to churn out 3 point essays, pretend to examine both
sides of the argument, then to declare that, on the balance, the side which
they gave the most air time to has more points in favor of it.

~~~
sili
I think students should be tought "how to think" and not "what to think".
Teaching what to think is, to some extent, brainwashing. The problem, as you
pointed out, is that institutions try to teach "how to think" but fail at it.

~~~
rmah
IMO, one cannot think without a base of knowledge and facts. To attempt to
think without knowledge leads to erroneous conclusions base on what feels
good. The profound level of ignorance that I see sometimes in the so-called
educated young people of today is bad. Worse, they often don't even realize
they're ignorant. And worst of all, some even revel in it and proclaim the
knowledge is irrelevant.

------
atlantic
If this is a real problem, I would suggest reintroducing the study of
philosophy right across the board. It deals precisely with all the "meta-
questions" that fall outside the scope of established disciplines.

~~~
michael_dorfman
Some countries (such as Norway) do precisely this:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examen_philosophicum>

------
auganov
As for the article itself I have similar thoughts to archgoon that it's more
likely that their sample has changed rather than the actual population of
students.

I find it funny how whenever some problem with education is brought up there's
so many people suggesting simple solutions like changes to the curriculum
across the board.

Each and every curriculum/educational philosophy WILL have it's problems and
WILL tend to produce a certain kind of a person. Nobody denies that there's so
many other countries that have better results in certain fields on
standardized tests as compared to the US. But not only are those tests poor in
measuring proficiency in a single subject[1], they are a complete joke if you
want to use that to reflect on the education as a whole.

Unified curriculum is the problem itself. Although it's not very obvious as of
right now I think we'll see a HUGE decentralization in how the education
works. I won't be surprised if in 20-30 years the whole primary-middle-high
school system will get redefined.

You can also rant about the universities in the US, but they are still the
best in the world. There are no more than 5-10 universities in other countries
that could compare to the top US institutions.

Generally speaking I think it's a nonsense to compare average quality
institutions at all. It's a contest of who is least bad. Compare the best.
It's not hard for Europeans to have slightly better public education if
private is very limited in it's operations.

[1]The problem with international standardized tests is that the way subjects
are thought differs between each country. And it happens that US schools
usually have a very different approach to teaching subjects like math as
compared to the rest of the world. I can easily see how those tests are skewed
against the US.

~~~
ez77
_You can also rant about the universities in the US, but they are still the
best in the world._

I think you would have to elaborate on that quite a bit to make it somewhat
true. Lots of foreign students, including some of the brightest, get their
higher-education degrees in the US, mainly at the graduate level. That happens
because a good chunk of the brightest professionals are professors at these
institutions, and the research resources are plentiful. Clearly the research
experience for top-level students is outstanding, _both_ at the graduate and
undergraduate levels. In this pretty narrow sense US universities are the best
in the world.

But… West Civ I? English Comp? College Algebra, including topics such as
completing the square? Calc I derivative shortcuts? For the love of Pete,
compare this kind of curriculum with what is taught in Europe, Asia and (gasp)
Latin America. You will find that your average college graduate knows much
less than elsewhere. Granted, the best may be future Nobel laureates, but that
doesn’t hide the fact that undergraduate college education in the US has
become a years-long remedial program for a disastrous K12 plan.

~~~
krschultz
That's a stretch. Of the 40-50 kids I knew in college, not a single one took
College Alegbra. Not to mention that my freshman English Comp classes was one
of the most intense, interesting, useful classes I took in college. If some
are guilty of comparing the tippy top of the US college system to the rest of
the world's average, you are certainly guilty of comparing the bottom of the
bottom to the world average.

~~~
ez77
_Of the 40-50 kids I knew in college, not a single one took College Alegbra._

But this kind of "College Algebra" is, understandably, considered college-
level material. That pretty much happens only in the US (considering countries
with educational systems...), and choices such as this influence the overall
academic level.

 _my freshman English Comp classes was one of the most intense, interesting,
useful classes I took in college_

That's great, and I happened to enjoy a lot my electives such as Theater 101
as a math undergrad (even if I was critical of the curriculum)... but the main
point is: Should English composition courses be given at the college level?
What, then, do you do during those twelve (OK... last three of those twelve?)
previous years? I was puzzled when a student who clearly didn’t need English
composition defended this setup, arguing that “a college student should know
how to write”. Well, “a high-school graduate should know how to write”, was my
response then and now, and if you press me elementary-school students should
be well on their way to accomplishing this.

I’m not saying this has an easy solution. Some countries “fix” their K12 woes
by resetting the academic level at the college admission tests. As a result, a
good chunk of the population has to find a way to raise their level, which is
not ideal either. But what the US opts to do lowers the undergraduate level,
no doubt. I wonder if this will eventually trickle down to Ph.D. programs.

Edit: All this leaves out grade inflation and related issues... It is
downright _hard_ to fail most courses of some majors. This is bad enough.

------
hessenwolf
Mmmm... pretty sure Adam Smith was on the money when he talked about division
of labour and increasing specialisation, in 1776.

------
adestefan
This is exactly the same thing the Mike Rowe article discussed, but on the
other end of the spectrum. Rowe talked about how there is a lack of vocational
training, while Wilson is arguing there is a lack of philosophical training.
The problem stems from teaching everyone the same curriculum in US high
schools. It's time the US realizes that not everyone should be learning the
same things after their years of elementary/primary school.

------
VladRussian
>For most of the past 20 years I have served on selection committees for the
Rhodes Scholarship.

...

>The writer represented New Mexico in the U.S. House from 1997 to 2008.

seems to me that the author wasn't just an innocent bystander, instead she was
too active and powerful participant in shaping the society and its education
to blame the end result on anybody else without acknowledging her share of
responsibility.

~~~
ericd
It's a bit of a stretch to say that a congresswoman is responsible for the
narrowing of university curricula, as if they're central planners.

~~~
VladRussian
universities respond to society demands. She has been definitely an important
player in shaping the society to demand (incl. reward higher) the highly
specialized professionals with impaired critical
thinking/initiative/leadership abilities. Cushy corporate or academia job vs.
"not a team player" - who is to blame for such a choice posed before the
youngsters? Universities?

Even at the micro scale - her "blame the others" leadership approach clearly
shows a leader who isn't tolerable to critical thinker and leader types even
in her own staff.

------
jriddycuz
The kind of people who are inclined to think across disciplines are the same
kind of people that are inclined to look at education an think, "this is
bullshit." They may not know why they think this, because it takes some real
experience and perspective to understand why, but they can smell the stench
from miles away. Training a mind to see patterns across disparate fields also
gives it an intuition for seeing what is fundamental, central and essential to
a thing. This intuition leads to the realization that grades, awards,
scholarships and the like are but the mere artifice of achievement.

The kind of person that deserves a Rhodes scholarship according to the
author's definition of what one should be is the kind of person who would be
unlikely to play the game necessary to qualify for one.

------
Emore
Perhaps only tangentially relevant, but as they snarkily say here in Oxford:
When you graduate as a Rhodes scholar you know your best days are behind you.

------
goldmab
"We interview the best graduates of U.S. universities..."

The best at _what?_

------
DanielBMarkham
Philosophy, rhetoric, and history.

By "philosophy" I mean a broad meta study of the field: the philosophy of
science, epistemology, the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of language,
etc. By "rhetoric" I mean both the construction and execution of persuasive
argument in printed and verbal form. Everybody should have a few folks from
history that they are intimately familiar with and feel that they faced
similar problem in life.

Philosophy can give you a broad view of what is knowable, what is not, and how
folks move from not being able to to know, to being able to know, to actually
knowing -- a key component of both the advancement of science and the
development of an individual. Topics like stoicism and existentialism, if
presented appropriately, can provide a backstop of beliefs for any student,
regardless of their religious or moral convictions. Rhetoric helps you spot
when folks are trying to manipulate you, and it challenges you form coherent
arguments yourself about things outside of one small area. History gives you
context: every generation feels as if it is here at some kind of special and
unique spot. Knowing that humans 500 years ago were the same model as the ones
you meet on the street helps put your opinions and interests in context.

Unfortunately, if I hadn't defined what I mean by those three subjects my
recommendation would be pointless. You can go to any college today and take
courses under those headings and not receive those benefits -- perhaps this is
because those who design the courses view them as introductions to a deep dive
on a topic and not practical, broad, benefits-based interventions with young
minds. I don't know. I understand that my advice is easier said than done: how
would you introduce history to a large group of students in such a way that
each student found their own historical figures that they would benefit from
absorbing? How do you take topics that the students might find popular and
feel-good and give them the ability to tear apart the fluff around them and
find the good stuff underneath? Having a professor stand up and say something
like "this is my opinion on X. I may be wrong, but we'll never know unless I
give you the skills to identify and refute faulty argument" just isn't
happening. Instead, classrooms are hierarchical affairs.

Instead of this discovery process, students get pre-canned little happy meals.
Instead of taking charge of forming their own identity across multiple
disciplines that they can describe and defend, we get these examples of kids
simply being out of their depth once you stray just a little bit from their
established path. An education that is both broad and self-determined is not
an easy problem to solve. The system is not built for it.

~~~
goombastic
I studied in India. I didn't have any teachers for 4 years while i was passing
school in the 80's. We had temps who would come and leave in a week since we
stayed way out in a remote place while my dad worked on some government
projects. Till this day, I haven't forgotten how I studied, the discovery
process was the only thing that held my interest, I got a couple of US
university level books and solved through them. The discovery process made an
autodidact for life, but the rewards went to the people with happy meals
anyway. However, till this day, I am able to reconfigure my skills to meet the
need of the hour. I am a quick hack away from happiness.

~~~
ippisl
Interesting . did it have the same impact to the rest of your class ?

~~~
goombastic
Many who could afford moving to a city did so. In the end the ones that were
left were 5 girls and 4 guys. The girls got married and settled down a few
years later. Thinking about it now, all of the city guys are now settled in
the US.

Strangely, given the parent comment, I did study the history of science later
and have a research degree to show for it. :)

------
dorian-graph
Would a returning of a type of 'old' classical education specifically in
primary and high school help?

~~~
Daniel_Newby
Where would you get the teachers? The smart women who made the old system run
these days work in commerce in industry.

~~~
kongqiu
Excellent point; I hadn't thought of that, and don't recall hearing it
discussed in any of the "educational quality" debates.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
Teacher quality has been mentioned, often in the context of the difficulty of
firing bad teachers in many U.S. school systems.

