Dot Dot Dot

Education

Dave's blog post got me thinking about education. Since I'm a graduate student, I've been thinking about my own education quite a bit. I also have the opportunity to work with undergraduates, so I get to think about their education too.

Ideally the process of learning is something one engages in for their own personal benefit. Either one is internally motivated to learn because they recognize the benefits of learning, or one is externally motivated to learn because another (in authority) had decided what is "good" for that one. I think every educator's ideal is internal motivation because the student recognizes the need to learn and is actively participating, but external motivation is not necessarily a bad thing.

For a particular subject matter, there are two cases that require external motivation: 1) lack of awareness of the need to be educated and 2) disagreement with the asserted need to be educated. If the need to be educated, in a particular subject matter, is a valid need, the first case amounts to individual ignorance and the second case amounts to personal rebellion. The ignorance may be overcome by demonstrating the validity of the need, and presumably, one can win over the individual into the "self motivated" camp. If one understands why he should be educated but just doesn't want to be, one in authority can force the individual to engage in the activity because it is good for him whether the individual likes it or not. Likewise, as a parent, I compel my children to do certain things to help them grow and establish good habits. This is a proper role for me since I am in authority over my children and I seek the best for them.

The issue gets thorny when considering a perceived but invalid need for education in a particular subject matter. In this instance, both case #1 and #2 unfairly characterize the individual as ignorant or rebellious even though the individual is neither. Instead, the individual is making a good decision.

This leads us to the strategy for educational lobbying. First, assert that one can "never get enough education" and therefore "education is always good for you." This creates a penultimate need for education--the need is never invalid. In that context, anyone who disagrees with you is either ignorant (case #1) or some kind of rebellious social dissident (case #2). And you and all the other "educated" people can pal around and feel good about yourselves since you aren't ignorant or anarchists like the people who just don't "get it."

Of course, this discussion begs the question of *what* one *needs* to be educated in. I think everyone agrees that some form of education is absolutely necessary, but everyone has their own opinion on what that form should be. And, fundamentally, no one is able to determine some kind of optimum level of education that everyone should receive--one can only aim for baselines and not optimums.

Since the need is clearly a difficult thing to establish, this brings us to the question: Who establishes the need? Should it be parents? the kids themselves? the government? a panel of HR representatives from the strongest American corporations? And so we fight and fight and fight.

Personally, I like the idea of fundamental to advanced levels of education in all sorts of subject matters being attainable for all Americans. It sounds so egalitarian--it's very "American" in that sense. I'm not sure how economically sound it is, but I like the idea. I don't like the idea of forcing individuals to get education they don't want. So, I see education as a smorgasboard of opportunity for those who want to dine. If you are full, go away happy. Once education no longer serves to benefit you, but you are subject to it for the sake of itself, who is it helping?

Posted by enigma at June 12, 2006 09:22 AM