In the 20th anniversary edition of Rolling Stone, Timothy Leary is quoted:
“We are dealing with the best-educated generation in history. They are a hundred times better educated than their grandparents, and ten times more sophisticated. There has never been such an open-minded group. The problem is that no one is giving them anything fresh. They’ve got a brain dressed up with nowhere to go.”
Recent headlines seem to indicate that his words are more true today than in 1987 when the article ran. This NYT piece highlights the mountain of debt students often incur in obtaining a college degree and their inability to procure employment paying highly enough to enable student loan repayment.
It now seems that the days when a college degree almost always justified the expense and foregone wages are long gone. Students are now seeking out ways to save on college expenses and are taking summer courses which are often cheaper than tuition during regular terms. This seems like the first step in public realization that college degrees are inching ever closer to being gambles rather than investments. Soon, prospective students will be forced to do far more cost-benefit analysis when determining their career and education path.
{ 30 comments }
“They are a hundred times better educated than their grandparents…”
I seriously doubt this, unless the grandparents were uneducated farmers, and the student college graduates. Even then, it seems quite an exaggeration, considering that diploma inflation makes a diploma worth much less than it used to. My grandparents were farmers, and I have a bachelor’s degree, and yet the chances that I am 100 times smarter than them seems almost nil.
“… and ten times more sophisticated.”
In the sense of sophistry or (over-)complication, yes. In the sense of refinement or elegance, I again seriously doubt it.
“There has never been such an open-minded group.”
So open their brains are likely to fall out. I’d take the prejudices of a circa 1987 Michael J. Fox clone Reagan Republican over an “unprejudiced” Obama Zombie anyday.
We’ve created a culture today, in public schools and elsewhere, that says you have to go to college, no matter what. The student loan program, all of the online universities, etc., have come as a result of this. These reasons (increased demand, access to government loans) are partly to blame for the astronomical rise in college costs, but not all. Part of the problem is that government jobs, and some private sector jobs, have some sort of degree or certificate requirement, even though you may really not need it. I have a lot of education, some of which I use every day, but for a lot of jobs, it is not necessary to go to college. I think this post is correct when it says that cost-benefit analysis will become more and more important. What seems to me to be happening is that the quality of university education is declining as all of the institutions struggle to keep up with enrollment. This comes back to the accreditations needed to harness federal student aid, among other things. If you can’t get the accreditation, you can’t get federal money and loans for your students, and therefore, you can’t get many students. And the cycle feeds back on itself over and over…….
Yes, Quality of Education is declining as emphasis is on the scrutiny of the Paper Qualification rather than the Man/Woman. All this to perpetuate the The Global Ponji scheme that begins by the creation of money by printing. People have to be enslaved to pay up these debts that someone or some institute or some government has incurred as a result of initiating a “Great Idea” – which has no foundations other than the fact that there is debt to pay up once started !!
I believe a lot of education doesn’t nearly reflect market needs, because in and of itself, except for the Von Mises’, Rothbards, etc. are basically in a vacuum of dead or useless studies for the most part. Not always, but by in large, many of the jobs that do pay (with a degree) are a protected profession, or unios of sorts. Much of academia, like so many here have espoused is complete and utter nonsense. Useless endevours on how not to contribute in a productive manner and receieve a comfortable paycheck. Only a Mega State with nearly unlimited “Stolen” resources and cheap money can allow what has happened.
I’ll take the farmers and rural folk or sorts I grew up with, (though not perfect and to a degree beneficiaries of the State), over the Youts of today, (using a Joe Pesci lne).
The State has caused so many unseen distortions in the generational development in pursuing life’s goals, its hard to make statements without going back and unfolding another cause to the effect.
This does not even begin to touch on the plethora of economic regulation within the countless industries, trades, and markets out there.
I don’t know everything, but there is a lot confusion out there because of the State Schools and their directing of student’s careers. Simply put, “it ain’t right”!
Thanks to mises.org (and others), the university is being disintermediated anyway.
i personally believe the quality of education is significantly lower than it was back when i was in school and certainly when my parents attended. i as well as my parents gen were forced to learn such horrible things as reading and writing properly, phonics, and math without a calculator. todays more “scientifically engineered” curriculum is pumping out alot more dummies while tenure ensures the teachers union a cushy paycheck and tax payer crushing pension plan for all their lousy work.
Some of those same kids who can’t do math without a calculator are now graduating from college with teaching degrees. how will this end?
With great profit for the calculator manufacturers…
i kid you not. my wife (who is im happy to say a decade my junior LOL) was not taught the multiplication table. we have university professors here in canada talking to the MSM saying if they do not see an improvement in basic reading/writing skills as well as research skills they will be imposing a mandatory summer school english class (an anecdote by one professor who told the CBC reporter that one of the students in his class used wikipedia as a major reference for his or her project.)
a dumb population is an easily controlled population.
my wife… was not taught the multiplication table.
As a college professor with a PhD in Mathematics, I say: Good!
Those of you who seem to think that a proper mathematics education would turn a student into some kind of calculator should read the following: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/1.html
Did you notice that Benezet twice misspelled “through” as “thru?” Doesn’t say much for his expert opinion as an educator, nor for the Journal of the National Education Association.
Spelling errors aside, I wholly concur that Arithmetic, as opposed to true Mathematics, is of limited use. How often do people have a life-or-death multiplication problem and no calculator?
I used to be able to do second derivatives in my head but have since lost that skill. Higher level math is important because it refines our problem solving ability and improves upon certain thought processes. I may never use calculus as an accountant but I am probably a better accountant because my brain learned how to work through such problems.
As far as I know, that was once a fairly common variant spelling of “through,” and it’s still in limited use. Nice attempt at ad hominem, though.
But back to my original point, I am sick to death of people judging mathematics teaching by how well students can compute, or solve some small and arbitrary class of unrealistic “word problems,” without ever questioning in the slightest why we — or more importantly, the students — should care whether they can do such things.
Now, don’t misunderstand me: mathematics teaching is largely broken. But aside from the many causes that can be laid at the feet of the state, another important cause is the desire (both of parents and dim-witted teachers) to have the current soul-crushing curriculum drilled into students’ heads.
A longer, more eloquent. and more forceful exposition of my comments above is given here: http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf
Unfortunately, there are some definite typographical errors in that document; I hope that if you read it, you try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.
One of the author’s first complaints about school mathematics is that it is forced upon students. This should strike a chord with libertarians. It also touches upon one of my greatest objections to college education in particular: the huge assortment of extraneous courses required. I think this is a hallmark of state interference (especially in the form of union meddling) in education.
>>my wife… was not taught the multiplication table.
>As a college professor with a PhD in Mathematics, I say: Good!
I don’t agree that this is good. A poor grasp of basic arithmetic is an impediment in real life, and is a severe impediment to understanding most higher mathematics. It seems that even the greatest mathematicians actually revel in doing arithmetic. For example, in one of his papers, Euler essentially computes the Gompertz constant using about six different methods replete with arithmetical calculations. I believe Siegel, while scouring Riemann’s lost notes, found a manual computation of e to dozens of digits inexplicably appearing among integrations related to the Zeta function.
I’d like to see an even greater focus on arithmetic – one that teaches tricks like the geometric series (e.g. 1/7 = 143/1001=0.143-0.000143+etc.), factorization into prime numbers, (x-1)(x+1) = xx-1, etc. More important than just learning by rote are: intuition, cleverness, ability to compute approximations, understanding algorithmic performance (e.g. multiplication tables vs. counting parts of a rectangle), and also real-life numeracy (e.g. understanding the difference between $10^6 and $10^9).
I’d rather see this and things like geometrical proofs, symbolic logic, and “pre-calculus” be jettisoned if necessary.
BTW my opinion was meant for someone who wants to excel in mathematics.
No one should be forced to learn something they don’t want.
The article was written by a mouthpiece of the teachers’ union. The author has no credibility.
The article is opposed to teaching the multiplication tables. That is the greatest endorsement of them possible.
>The article is opposed to teaching the multiplication tables. That is the greatest endorsement of them possible.
Who wouldn’t teach their kids multiplication tables? I understand wanting the freedom to not teach them this, but seriously? Even in the article linked to, the teacher wants to teach them multiplication tables (although not until grade 6 – a mistake IMHO).
>The article was written by a mouthpiece of the teachers’ union. The author has no credibility.
Given my understanding of teachers’ unions I can safely say that no union would ever endorse a proposal that would make their job more complex in Lockhart’s fashion. To have to put aside the simplistic approach of textbooks and linear lesson plans would fly in the face of the underlying objective to make the most money and achieve the most security for the least amount of effort.
Furthermore, I’m in agreement that the times tables are not critically important to understanding arithmetic. Understanding the multiplication process itself is more important than mere memorization of certain pattern strings that one isn’t likely to use often in everyday life.
No one should be forced to learn something they don’t want.
Very true. You have your opinions and I have mine, so let’s see which ones excel in an open market. (I wish.)
The article was written by a mouthpiece of the teachers’ union. The author has no credibility.
Are you referring to Benezet’s article? That is, the article written 70 years ago? Also, is ad hominem really the best you can do?
Who wouldn’t teach their kids multiplication tables?
I have no plans to do so. (Full disclosure: my oldest child is currently 6.) But I imagine one or two of them may pick the tables up along the way, or even learn the tables deliberately — by their own choice.
Understanding the multiplication process itself is more important than mere memorization…
True, and beyond that, Lockhart describes how students should be aware that there are no hard facts in mathematics. The results of mathematics (including even the multiplication tables) are the result of mental explorations and conscious choices made with a variety of considerations in mind, from applicability to mere aesthetics.
Since the brains are ‘all dressed up’ we may as well give them a place to go so they can shine. One of the ‘places’ to go is to earn a Masters Degree in the divine economy theory. It would be great for that to become a ‘hangout!’
B.A. in recombinant gene technology, minor in chemistry. M.A. in English. Ph.D. in the Humanities. Publications on The Spontaneous Orders of the Arts, combining Hayek’s ideas on how the brain works with evolutionary psychology and his ideas on the moral spontaneous order, and applying game theory to the study and teaching of literature, with a future publication on Hayek’s Sensory Order. My job: hotel night auditor. My pay: $10.50/hr.
Can you type?
I can. About 90 words per minute.
Perhaps a quick course in filling out a job application, or how to perform in an interview would have been useful.
>>Who wouldn’t teach their kids multiplication tables?
>I have no plans to do so.
Then I’m not sure how they will multiply larger numbers. For example, 678×135. I can think of a few methods.
1. Construct a huge 678×135 rectangle and count the elements (this will take forever)
2. Construct the needed multiplication tables, assuming the concept has already been learned
3. Use binary: 678×135=678x(128+4+2+1)=678 plus (678 doubled once) plus (678 doubled twice) plus (678 doubled 7 times). To do the doubling you’d have to keep adding the number to itself since you don’t have multiplication tables. I wonder if there is a refined way of doing all this addition on paper.
#2 is probably the easiest and requires the fewest operations. With this method, one will end up memorizing multipication tables eventually.
With the development of society, the education condition and children are good, but also some problems, although the conditions, but personal qualities and not get greatly improved, we must recognize that this problem.
This is a great article.Nowadays,The education condition and personal qualities all need to be improved for childrens.
This is real problem. I see to many students with diploma without some useful knowledge. They can learn for exam, but they can’t use there brain in real life situation.
“Soon, prospective students will be forced to do far more cost-benefit analysis when determining their career and education path.”
What!!?? Say it isn’t so! Are you really stating that college students may be forced to think?
I’m no mathematician, but I do recognize the basic value of the multiplication table. Has this gone the way of Latin? I’m not up on current math teaching/learning, but it seems quite useful to me in ordinary reality. I learned it in 1961 in the 3rd grade. It was beaten into my head. JFK became president that year, and I was just a young child. In 1966 in the 8th grade I was introduced to “new math,” with its bases (eg. base 8, 9, etc.). I never could figure it out. It was dispensed with a couple years later. What is it??? I took Latin in 9th grade and fell in love with this allegedly “dead language,” but it has enriched my life immensely since. I’ve gotten an undergrad. and graduate degree in it since then. I don’t regret it. American culture is about “doing” and not “being,” thus relegating philosophy, ancient languages, etc. to the scrapheap of useless information. The substructures of learning are not considered here. It’s a tragedy in my view. Were I to advise a young person to become educated literally (assuming s/he wants to be), I’d recommend a double major in high school and in college as follows: one in the humanities or social sciences and the other in hard sciences or technology. Or perhaps some other swap of combinations would suffice.
One other thing I’ve noticed on here is the clever invective utilized in addressing each others’ posts: does it have to be that way? Can’t you answer each other with a bit of civility? It solves nothing to denigrate another human being and only makes the aggressor look quite bad. Civility should be instilled in all areas of life with a dose of human respect. I probably will forget where/when/how I posted this, so it’s unlikely that I’ll view any responses. I HAVE SPOKEN! Adios. Valete.
Comments on this entry are closed.