Why basic education fails - everywhere

[Terxpahseyton]

A bold title, but a simple reasoning: Because we only teach how to handle knowledge, not how to handle lack of knowledge and most of all the ambiguous character of knowledge.

My impression is that in school we adhere to knowledge like it is a god-given quality. Which results in very, very, wrong and potentially very harmful conclusions.

This works fairly well in natural sciences, because we have such great means to control that kind of science that we maybe can afford to leave the majority in the dark about its ambiguity.

But this fails horribly when it comes to topics directly concerning society - social sciences (yeah I've head, "science" is a very limited term in English, but I have chosen to not care for this narrow-minded limitation in this OP ).

In social sciences, to use knowledge one needs the context of its creation. One needs the ability to critically rethink it, question it and to think for oneself. Because in social sciences, it is all very much up to interpretation.
And don't be fooled, social sciences are crucial! Not so much for the materialistic economy itself, I'll give you that. But for society, and most of all for a democracy! - it is the core of everything (and with that for the materialistic economy as well - so for your personal materialistic well being).

Social sciences means economy (so the materialistic base), it means sociology (so the communal base) and it means political science (so the political base). It means what determines how we in principle organize - well everything! But it offers no individual immediate economic gain by default, only long-term common gain. And that is probably where the core issue is to be found why there is a lack of advocacy of the understanding of the deficiencies of "knowledge".

So I hereby proclaim that any educational system is in grave need for reform. Not necessarily for the benefit of the individual. But sure as hell for the benefit of the whole (and if someone thinks that alone constitutes socialism - please pm me or something, this thread deserves better).

 

[muhtesem insan]

I don't think it's failing. It does what intended to do.

 

[History_Buff]

I'm not sure I understand what your point is... social science education is generally poor?

I think half the problem is that people are really, really bad at statistics. If we did a better job of teaching that to every student (instead of say, calculus) I think the world would be a much better place.

 

[Tee Kay]

I don't think it's failing. It does what intended to do.

So that's what we need to change, then; education needs to mean something else. Right now it means, primarily, manufacturing consumers/resources for the workforce. The secondary mode of growing responsible knowledgable citizens is generally implemented half-heartedly and in a top-down, standardised manner. Things like critical thinking, creativity, etc are starting to be recognised as important but the way they are treated in school are still old-fashioned (eg learning by rote from textbooks or powerpoint presentations on critical thinking without practical connections to the real world). Not to mention the standardised curricula in which hours are wasted on subjects which are only interesting or useful to a few students and dull and useless for the rest. People need to recognise the diversity of people and the need for education to be similarly diversified.

 

[aronnax]

I think it's unfair to pinpoint the failure of basic education as 'everywhere'.

I think some school education system handles the education of critical thinking better than others.
I could be bias because I do take IB, but I honestly feel that systems like the international Baccalaureate can impart these values better.

 

[Kozmos]

Ah, social "sciences".

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I'm not sure I understand what your point is... social science education is generally poor?

Absolutely not. To simply teach social sciences like we teach other subjects would barely touch what I suggest.

What is poor is education beyond natural sciences and beyond laws/established views (i.e. just teaching view x and y of social science z and have it memorized is not what my point is). Which leads to a situation where the masses are not equipped to deal with matters that don't rest on neat laws to be memorized like in physics or neat and tidy interpretations to be memorized like in history class, but on a very ambiguous and incomplete base of assumed knowledge, like TV news, or world views, or economics, or public policy decisions, or.... or everything else related to human interaction.

And my second point is that such teaching is not just fluffy ideals, but carries very hard and real consequences for how our world is and will be like. Especially in a democracy.

 

[aelf]

I think you've realised how important critical thinking is to the humanities and social sciences, i.e. the ability to understand things according to their contexts; to know their limits and the limits of what can be said about them, so to speak. I guess that's part of what makes the social sciences 'scientific' - methodology and evidence are absolutely essential to the soundness of your conclusions. It's very interesting to see that many scientists or scientifically-minded people fail to understand this whenever they talk about society. I guess there's a balance to be struck between being 'scientific' about it and being 'human' about it.

But I think what you're complaining about is the fact that the social sciences are taught as if the knowledge is supposed to yield quick and tangible benefits. Witness how 'critical thinking' is bandied about in the commercial world. And my answer is simply that that's the reality of capitalism. Whatever does not yield quick and tangible benefits is not going to be appreciated much. I don't like it, but what can change this tendency short of a massive cultural shift?

 

[Ayatollah So]

I don't like it, but what can change this tendency short of a massive cultural shift?

Be realistic: demand the impossible.

 

[History_Buff]

Wait, why are we talking like critical thinking is something unique to the social sciences? The hard sciences are just as reliant on it. And we adore seeing the process and assumptions detailed, so I don't really understand aelf's point either.

But yeah, we're certainly bad at teaching it to our children.

 

[Alassius]

So I hereby proclaim that any educational system is in grave need for reform.

It's trivial to say "any whatever system is in grave need for reform". It's usually impossibly hard to actually design a system free from whatever flaws you come up with, which is usually why such a reform hasn't been done.

 

[Crezth]

I always roll my eyes hard at people who harp on about the need for reform in the education system. Yes, yes, it needs to be reformed. Now how exactly does it need to be changed?

 

[LucyDuke]

And my second point is that such teaching is not just fluffy ideals, but carries very hard and real consequences for how our world is and will be like. Especially in a democracy.

So is learning. Teach things that students have use for, and they'll learn them.

 

[Kozmos]

I don't think you can exactly teach critical thinking in education. If you could, well...we wouldn't be here would we now?

 

[Winner]

I don't think you can exactly teach critical thinking in education. If you could, well...we wouldn't be here would we now?

You can, at least in most cases (and if the parents cooperate).

I live in a country whose education system is mostly knowledge-driven. Children are being stuffed with knowledge, but they're not taught how to use it. Which is why they forget most of what they've been taught right after they leave school.

---

(and in Czech, we don't have a problem using the term "science" (věda) for "social sciences" (společenské vědy) either).

 

[Narz]

I'm currently reading a book which I am almost finished with & plan to write a review of. It's premise is that a major aspect of the problem with modern education systems is they are competitive rather than cooperative. Cooperation is considered another word for cheating even though studies have found that when studies work together instead of against each other they retain more knowledge, have better understanding of what they do learn & even the top students seem to learn more (obviously weaker students would learn more coolaberating with the top performers but top performers also tend to learn & retain more when given roles of teaching other students).

I wrote about this more extensively in my notes but they're on another computer.

BTW, I agree fully about social sciences. When I was a kid "social studies" was mostly just history and history studied seemingly at random and without any context of relating to the present. The emphasis was on memorizing dates & facts rather than developing any deep understanding of causes or connection to past & present.

 

[Kozmos]

I was raised in an environment that didn't exactly encourage critical thinking (die-hard catholic parents, similar crammed knowledge education system) but I was naturally curious. I'm not saying I'm special or anything, but I think it has a lot to do with the brain and thus genetics on some level. Some people are not just interested in that sort of thing. If they were, modern politics might not be such a mess.

 

[aelf]

Be realistic: demand the impossible.

Heh.

Wait, why are we talking like critical thinking is something unique to the social sciences? The hard sciences are just as reliant on it. And we adore seeing the process and assumptions detailed, so I don't really understand aelf's point either.

Eh? I didn't say it was unique to the social sciences. In fact, I did mention that "It's very interesting to see that many scientists or scientifically-minded people fail to understand this whenever they talk about society". I wasn't specifically talking about critical thinking there, but I was actually saying that the social sciences and the natural sciences are not all that different.

The difference is in their results. Social sciences do yield tangible benefits, if not always quickly, but I think the benefits are difficult to quantify in precise ways. So I think people know that they are necessary but often complain that too much resources are spent on them. Thus critical thinking on matters that the social sciences are concerned with is not held to be as important and is often not taught well.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It's trivial to say "any whatever system is in grave need for reform". It's usually impossibly hard to actually design a system free from whatever flaws you come up with, which is usually why such a reform hasn't been done.

I don't think I just talk about some flaw I managed to come up with. I talk about the flaw that our education doesn't even seriously try to teach the common people how to handle the media/public opinion, the different subjects of politics like economics, framing society etc. (and all the other stuff at focus in social sciences) and hence doesn't even seriously try to give its people the tools necessary to make democracy as successful as possible.

You are right that this would be difficult to be implemented. But that is what I call trivial as an insight. What about successfully designing education isn't complex, difficult to asses and hence hard? Still we seem to manage to yield some amazing results... Really, to just assume that we don't aim for what I propose because there is some good mysterious reason is just lazy thinking. The actual reason is that the political will is missing to push for it. And that I decry as a huge and unnecessary failing.

I don't think you can exactly teach critical thinking in education.

I don't see a general reason why not. It really is just another tool, a typical approach. Not some higher level of consciousness or whatever... What it requires is guidance and practice. Practice, practice, practice. If that is done in a professional manner and students can be bothered to invest serious effort (which is a problem, no doubt, but that applies to say math just as well) - there just is no reason why it can't be done. It isn't magic.
You for instance can give people a thesis and demand them to analyze why it may be wrong, or too limited in its scope, or how its natural bias could obscure things and so on.
You can give them a news report and (knowing the full story) illustrate how it may be misleading and what causes this had.
You can pick historic examples of social sciences and illustrate how people managed to fool themselves. Like with psycho analysis.
There are countless opportunities to practice this skill because our life by default offers countless opportunities every day to make use of it.

But I think what you're complaining about is the fact that the social sciences are taught as if the knowledge is supposed to yield quick and tangible benefits. Witness how 'critical thinking' is bandied about in the commercial world.

Partially, yes. But most of all I am complaining that we don't give people the tools to handle the influx of information on society and its troubles, structures, institutions, developments etc. Of which a substantial understanding of social sciences is a crucial part.

And my answer is simply that that's the reality of capitalism. Whatever does not yield quick and tangible benefits is not going to be appreciated much. I don't like it, but what can change this tendency short of a massive cultural shift?

Public policy! Education! Such does not have to rest on the reality of capitalism. Just look at mandatory classes focusing on literature. We don't have that because the market demands it. We have that because we believe it to be valuable beyond immediate market demands, valuable in a bigger scope of things.
But I think the reason we don't do what I suggest, the reason we don't make an effort to give " people the tools to handle the influx of information on society and its troubles" is because it would also make life a lot harder for the "ruling class". Less fool-able citizens means more work and worries for them. So I fear we can't wait for a political will to arise. The people need to demand it. But there we really have a problem. How to make this happen? Some kind of private initiative would have to be the start. Like how environmental movements gained huge momentum out of private initiatives. But environmental issues are still a lot more tangible and hence more easy to communicate than what I advocate. So yes, quit a challenge.

 

[Crezth]

^^^ This is a good post. I think you can definitely teach critical thinking, it's just not valued in our society. Or, perhaps, is not desired by Those In Power (tm).

Eh? I didn't say it was unique to the social sciences. In fact, I did mention that "It's very interesting to see that many scientists or scientifically-minded people fail to understand this whenever they talk about society". I wasn't specifically talking about critical thinking there, but I was actually saying that the social sciences and the natural sciences are not all that different.

The difference is in their results. Social sciences do yield tangible benefits, if not always quickly, but I think the benefits are difficult to quantify in precise ways. So I think people know that they are necessary but often complain that too much resources are spent on them. Thus critical thinking on matters that the social sciences are concerned with is not held to be as important and is often not taught well.

I think a major difference is that social sciences are often subjective in a way that hard sciences cannot possibly be.

I mean, whether or not communism worked or has ever been tried is a good example. Some would say it has been tried, and failed; some would say it hasn't been tried. That's where the critical thinking comes into play: parsing the differences and seeing relative benefits of each argument.

With the hard sciences, the critical thinking is more related to interpretation of complex subjects and theories, and the development of new subjects and theories. Scientists need to be skilled at analysis and interpretation as well. And, of course, if they're more of an applied science type, they need to know how to take their ideas and make it reality: they are acquainted with natural laws of practicality and availability.

The hard sciences also require a much more comprehensive and detailed body of knowledge of its practitioners than do students of social science. Almost anyone can pontificate on the relative benefits of the embargo on Cuba; it is a rare person indeed that can create a new alloy.