The economics discipline treats education as a black box. Human capital (a term derived to symbolize human thoughts as part of the production function) is generally proxied by simple variables like educational attainment. More forward thinking scholars will use test score achievement, and the cutting edge will use cognitive ability tests. The video below, though, argues that our whole concept of education discourages “divergent thinking,” the dynamic cognition that leads to innovation and change. Watch the video in which Ken Robinson discusses this issue (it’s another great piece by RSA Animate, which illuminates his words with drawings).
I certainly agree that our narrow educational paradigm likely hinders the number of students who are culled to achieve highly in school. Many would-be geniuses are left behind, and the economy suffers, even under a narrow neoclassical view of what economic progress is. I’m trying to think about how characteristics of this educational system relates to our economic system. We certainly see a move away from the liberal arts in higher education and towards majors that fit better in a capitalist economy, like business and the sciences (the latter aren’t necessarily bad, assuming they leave room for non-formulaic thinking). I;m not sure how this looks at the lower levels- I suppose children taught to toe the line at an earlier age are more likely to take the economic and political system for granted as well. Must educational reform precede real structural change for our economy?
It’s a difficult problem. At one extreme, divergent thinking could be encouraged if the teacher said, “Welcome to the class about anything you wish.”
Somewhat less divergent is, “Welcome to this arithmetic class. Think of anything you wish.”
A step down might be, “Welcome to this arithmetic class. One plus one is two.”
At this point we have arrived at a sort of baseline. Later, we might encourage more divergence if the teacher said, “Can you think of instances where one plus one does not equal two?” But we probably had to arrive at the baseline first.
The speaker’s chart showing student becoming less creative as they go through school, might look different for different people, some of whom become more creative after reaching that knowledge baseline.
Nevertheless, I agree with the concept that children become bored with the assembly line, treat-all-children-the-same approach. Been there.
In the Chicago area, we have one of the best high schools in America called New Trier. Not only are kids allowed to take courses at various levels (mostly there are four levels for each subject), but they also are encouraged to join one or more clubs of shared interest (There are dozens.) See the sections titled: Profile and Subject Levels
Creating a great school like New Trier is easy. It begins with money. (Sorry debt-hawks. Austerity won’t do it.)
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
You won’t be able to take a first degree in any of the humanities at a US public college in twenty years, with a handful of exceptions — Berkeley perhaps, Austin, Ann Arbor. Private schools may still offer such things, but they’ll be either beyond the reach of any but the rich (Ivies, little Ivies, a few others like Georgetown) or out of business all together.
It’s all STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) all the time now in high schools, and as the twig is grown, so shall grow the tree.
I’m always so impressed with these videos. This one in particular is wonderful- it touches on so many issues and manages to string them together in a coherent story.
It also highlights another criticism of the neoclassical theory of education. According to the theory, human capital is accumulated just like any type of capital, through consumption (purchasing). And according to consumer theory, the consumption of education is just like that for any other good, in that it cannot change preferences. This is a KEY assumption, that preferences are stable during consumption. If not, the whole theory would more or less fall apart. So “consuming” education CANNOT change you.
This assumption seems drastically at odds with the goals of most institutions of education, which seek to educate citizens as well as (in the liberal arts) make people feel and sense. As portrayed in the video, education should make students come alive. Notre Dame, for one, seeks to “educate the heart and mind.”
tahankyou
whitening brushhead new threads waiting for a nice topic
“Creating a great school like New Trier is easy. It begins with money. (Sorry debt-hawks. Austerity won’t do it.)”
Well, not really. It actually begins with intact (that means two biological parents raising their children in the same household), educated families who care about their children’s education. Big-city school systems such as CPS and DC spend tens of thousands per student, but their results are dismal because the kids come from dysfunctional families (read, single moms raising children with no assistance from dad) and the schools cannot compensate for the failure of the parents to parent.