Are traditions good because they are good or because they are practical
Every time I read an analysis that proposes there is something wrong with education because “the system” failed to recognize and develop the talents of Einstein or Edison, I go into reaction mode. Science and technology are important, talent needs to be developed, but it is also important to keep things in perspective and appreciate the practical limits we all impose on our educational institutions.
Some thoughts:
1) There are all kinds of passions – which do we encourage adolescents to pursue? The same names in the STEM argument always come up – Einstein, Edison (maybe Jobs, Gates). These individuals obviously were responsible for great advances or great companies. They may have been missed or misrepresented by the educational system (actually Gates was supported by the educational system). The message though is that the educational system is unable or unwilling to respond to the personal STEM passions of young people.
Just for sake of argument consider the reaction typically generated should I replace “all he wanted to do was math and physics” with “all he wanted to do was play basketball”. Educators sometimes lament the unrealistic world view of adolescents (often young men from the inner city) who idolize NBA stars and invest as much time as possible in playing the game they love. These kids probably have never heard of Richard Feynman, but are familiar with Shawn Kemp, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, and Moses Malone (if your own background does not offer the necessary insight – these are all individuals who went directly from high school to the NBA, made millions, etc.).
Schools do attempt to address unique talents to some degree – which (math, music, sports) are the passions that should be supported and what degree of support is practical?
2) What is the reasonable balance between depth and breadth? My personal experience with this issue stems from my university’s decision to increase the number of “essential studies” requirements. The counter position to students should be allowed to pursue personal passions seems to be – students on their own do not make the decisions necessary to prepare them as well rounded individuals. They may not take a foreign language, develop adequate communication skills, become sensitive to the world views of different cultures, etc., etc. At my institution, there were existing expectations focused on such goals, but evidently these requirements were not sufficient. Many students supposedly taking advantage of the opportunity to concentrate on their majors and self interests were leaving the institution as poor writers, unaware that others within the world see things differently or seemingly unaware where other parts of the world are, and incapable of recognizing the flaws in anecdotal reasoning.
The people concerned about breadth are serious academics concerned with the big question of what being educated means. I assume these educators recognize that many students have little interest in many of the areas of knowledge and skills they are expected to develop, but they persist in pushing additional requirements forward because they believe this is the best model for all graduates. Consider your own position on such issues. Learn a second language or take more chemistry – what do you think? Calculus for all or a course in world religions?
My point? If those in higher education worry about the development of breadth, what is the appropriate model for other levels of education and what is the appropriate breadth that should be expected of those unlikely to continue their education beyond the secondary level? I tend to see issue in terms of the reality of a closed system – something is added and something has to be eliminated. Perhaps you do not see this to be true -how would that work – more time for more courses?
3) Finally, there is what I describe as the “and then the magic happens” concern. Assuming all of us should have the opportunity to develop those interests and skills unique to each of us, just how should this happen? Given the limited resources (time, teachers, equipment) available in schools what is reasonable to expect? Without the addition of resources, promoting STEM is likely to reduce opportunities in other areas.
Frankly, I see the STEM advocates as pretty selfish. The proportion of students likely to make significant contributions through science and technology is likely small. Standardized tests have already forced a lack of balance in the skills we develop and this ranking of academic areas by economic importance would seem to promote more of the same.
My position? If forced to work with the present level of resources, I guess I support breadth. My 30+ years of experience have taught me to smile and nod when young people tell me their plans. Reality indicates that more change from such basic decisions as “what is my major” than do not. Parents already complain about the waste in tuition dollars when students cannot graduate in 4 years. I try to make the argument that exploring something and then deciding it is not for you is not a waste, but there is a limit to how far I can push this position with parents (and maybe now with those in the state legislature). Aside from the arguments I have already identified for being well rounded, the reality is that we discover passions as life presents us new experiences, we encounter the reality that we are not as good at something as we need to be to achieve success, and we change our minds as our perspective on life matures. I advocate breadth early, focus late.
