As an educator, my first response to the State of the Union was delight because the president focused so much of his discussion on the importance of education to our economy, present and future. We can only "win the future," he told us, "if we improve our educational system and make it function better for its consumers. Absolutely right on, I thought.
But then I noticed something about the president's repeated references to "education" and what the term seemed to mean to him. Without exception, when he specified what "education" was about, it was the new trinity: mathematics, science and technology. If education imparted these forms of knowledge to students, we were assured, this country's tradition of innovation would return and save us -- economically and even socially.
That, it seemed, was what education was and what it was for: vocational advancement, economic and lifestyle advantage, global competitiveness and higher prestige for our country and its citizens. Period.
I applaud those motives and I agree that excellence in those areas is a crucial aspect of education and a strong justification for it. But is that the only reason to get an education -- or even the major one?
As a social scientist-cum-humanist, rather than a mathematician, physical scientist or technocrat, I have to argue with the president's implicit definitions. To define the goals of education so narrowly is to restrict its value and, I would say, to sell ourselves short as individuals, as a society and as a nation. Education, properly conceived and developed, can and should do much more.
The discourse of Sarah Palin and her friends is appalling on its own, but worse is the way in which their readings of the Constitution and American history in general have been accepted as uncontroversially true by so many voters. There is a reason why this nation's founders, especially Thomas Jefferson, were concerned with making education available to all prospective voters and the Tea Party's success demonstrates the validity of their concern. There is a reason why Abraham Lincoln signed the law establishing land-grant colleges in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. Voters who have been exposed to critical thinking, especially in the areas of the social sciences, including of course political science, history and civics, are better voters than ignoramuses: better in discerning their own interests and voting to support them and better for the nation's continued well-being as a nation.
So even if we persist in valuing education only in terms of its practical value, that value must go beyond the holy three sanctified by President Obama. To be economically competitive, Americans must be conversant with science and technology (which imply mathematics). But in order to be politically intelligent and make important decisions at the ballot box, we must be equally familiar with history and politics.
But as important as it is to recognize the practical values of education, to me it seems even more important to recognize its less practical (but equally vital) functions. Education exposes us to ourselves and one another, to people seemingly very unlike ourselves (but not so different after all, if we get to know them), as well as to our own habits of thought. If we cannot achieve this understanding of ourselves, our virtues and shortcomings, we cannot be compassionate and we cannot be thoughtful. We cannot be fully human. What's more, and probably more important, is that we will be denied important sources of pleasure and for this reason we will also be less able to function fully in all our capacities.
Understanding how human beings work -- through literature, music, art and the social sciences such as psychology, anthropology and (dare I say) linguistics -- has no immediate practical value. Except for a few of us, it doesn't translate directly into jobs (though for many more, it certainly translates into getting a job done well). It doesn't make this country more "competitive": it does not, in any direct sense, enable us to "win the future" (though it might enable us to fully appreciate that complex metaphor).
It's the very "impracticality" of the humanities that makes them valuable to human beings and their societies. Education is invaluable not only in its ability to help people and societies get ahead, but equally in helping them develop the perspectives that make them fully human.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-the-nerd-ferraro/rocks-and-hard-places-is-_b_818604.html
I value art. I value history. I value music. I value physical education. I value social sciences. I'm just not sure public school is the best way to foster learning and progress in those fields. We need to come to agreement nationally about where national interests reside; then we need to come to agreement in states and local communities about where their interests reside. Funding needs to follow those interests. And funding needs to go to the organizations best able to deliver. Maybe it's not school, maybe it's a local nonprofit. Maybe the library. The YMCA ...
With that being said most of our politicians would have never been within 1000 miles of elected office if we have an educated populace. Therein lies the death of any democratic nation.
" consciousness based education (TM) " http://www.globalgoodnews.com/education-news-a.html?art=129660266260205245
i emailed whitehouse.gov and opengov@ed.gov; about adding Soul and Self to education
Therefore we shouldn’t set out to educate people for the sole purpose of providing labor to feed the economic system or any other externality. We must educate to actualize our distinct human potential as consciously aware beings. So if people go through the education system not having gained a love for learning and developed a critically thinking inquiring mind then the system will have failed all of us.
http://www.forprogressnotgrowth.com/2011/01/08/envision-then-enact-a-better-way/
It will be a failure of mega undoing. It will achieve the same results we now see in America. Wall street scams, banks gambling, pay for performance based on average mentality, massive cheating to keep jobs, i.e. the self-destruction of a nation.
The educational focus on results at any cost. I.e. playing the system like Wall Street and banks and corp America.
It cannot be stopped but many like your self will try desperately to stop this decline.
The lessons to be learned will be beneficial not only Americans to witness but also the entire world. Power and wealth corrupt. History tells us that over and over and over but we see and hear not. I.e. patriotism and nationalism can overwhelm the rational mind or minds.
Obama like most is part of the problem not the solution. But he represents American thinking. We blame our politicians for the ignorance of our voters. Individualism thing.
Do you think we have a problem getting students into the humanities? My experience is that much larger numbers of students opt for humanities than opt for STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). And both of these categories are far outweighed by Business degrees. And for those numbers who are in humanities, what options do they have after leaving school with all their debts?
I seriously do not doubt the value of humanities courses. As a math and science nerd in high school, I was thrilled by STEM courses in college. I was equally terrified by humanities courses. But, it was my Humanities 101 course, with its ridiculous title and terrifyingly demanding professor, that changed my life. I seriously doubt it has ever brought me even $1 more in salary as a professional, but it has enriched my life beyond any monetary sum. Saying that, what do you think the humanities should do, can do, or are doing to entice non-humanities students into exposure to their richness?