So far this week, I seem to be focusing on some of the big picture aspects of the education system (i.e. the big picture problems). In the Wall Street Journal, Scott Adams (the creator of the Dilbert comic strip) presents a rather novel perspective about how a college education should be structured.
If you read some of the assertions and ideas in this quote, it’s hard not to consider that there may be more than some ‘snarky’ iconoclasm going on. Upon some closer reading you are left with the presumption that all college students are grinding away on physics and calculus classes…
Somehow he seems to be advocating training college students in entrepreneurship versus ‘hard classes’, because the ‘B’ (and ‘C’ and ‘D’) students can’t completely master some of the classes which successful entrepreneurs (and all other college graduates) have passed… I still can’t get a very clear idea of what training to be an entrepreneur might be within the bounds of his assertions.
About the only aspect of his treatise I think I understand…he seems to be circling the idea of inculcating leadership as shortcoming in most college curricula…I would respectively suggest that he is advocating having more ‘B’ students enter the US Army (or any other part of the military) since leadership and responsibility are the keystones to what THEY teach…
Having written this, I can see that this plausible suggestion would likely be seen as a comparably snarky counterargument… (It’s not).
How to Get a Real Education
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704101604576247143383496656.html
I understand why the top students in America study physics, chemistry, calculus, and classic literature. The kids in this brainy group are the future professors, scientists, thinkers, and engineers who will propel civilization forward. But why do we make B students sit through these same classes? That’s like trying to train your cat to do your taxes—a waste of time and money. Wouldn’t it make more sense to teach B students something useful, like entrepreneurship?
Why do we make B students sit through the same classes as their brainy peers? That’s like trying to train your cat to do your taxes—a waste of time and money. Wouldn’t it make sense to teach them something useful instead?
Here are a few comments about this article I found on a listserv…Maybe there is more value in trying to do more than to throw a few rocks into the chicken coop…if you profess to want to find some answers to these questions…and these responses seem to circumscribe this.
How to Get a Real Education
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=72254
How exactly does one teach entrepreneurship? And why is it better to teach it to some people than teaching them science, math, and English?
What exactly would you "eliminate" from high school? Other than language skills (which include grammar, writing, reading, and yes, literature, because it’s hard to teach those skills outside the context of literature) and social studies, and some arts based electives (which like sports, are the only reason some kids will even go to school and therefore we need them, besides which art is its own justification IMO) what is there to eliminate? So you would eliminate history, geography, and civics? People are stupid enough when it comes to how government functions, if anything we need to do a better job of teaching it, somehow.
I think a basic high school education just barely contains enough of what every person needs to know regardless of what they are going on to do. I can’t see eliminating any of the core subjects. What we need to do is quit pretending everyone needs them on a college prep level; but they still need them all.
?? I hope things are working better regarding comments for you...You might have lost some continuity regarding your comment while i was upgrading my WordPress OS...at least that is the only thing I can think of...
I hope that this doesn't dissuade you from writing more cogent comments to this blog!
good luck, and thanks, one again
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like