[Vision2020] Response to Nick on Education

[Phil Nisbet]

Nick

It’s always a pleasure to discuss things with people of high intellect when 
comity is in use.


“Nick: I obviously hang around people very different from Phil.  I know a 
lot of folks who have done an MA or even a PhD just for the sheer (not 
Phil's "shear") joy of edification and personal gratification.  Some of our 
brightest students attend liberal arts colleges where the curriculum is 
designed not for a profession, but for responsible life in a liberal 
democratic society.”

“UI students sleep and/or frown through a liberal arts core course because 
our culture has not prepared for any sort of intellectual life at all.  
Phil, we have designed the core curriculum precisely for those geological 
oceanography students who believe that education is only a means to making 
big bucks.  I was an oceanography major at Oregon State and they dragged me 
kicking and screaming into my first English Comp. class.  After three terms 
I learned how to write and think great thoughts, and I switched to 
philosophy and religion and never looked back, even when my father said I 
would not make any money.”

Phil:  Nick, I was referring to your articles statements regarding science 
and engineering majors.  I would concur with you that in many of the fields 
of the liberal arts the passion for learning is the major driving factor, 
though for certain professions liberal arts degrees are just as much of a 
ticket punching exercise.

When I finished my BSc in Geology at the University of Washington, I had 5 
credits short of a degree in Mining Engineering, 10 credits short of a 
degree in Math and 10 credits short of a degree in History.  I used to go to 
classes at night as well as during the day, to fit in course opportunities 
to study with guys like Donald Treadgold, the Dean of the History 
Department.  Most of us science and engineering students took those courses 
because we loved the knowledge and ideas, not because we needed the GUR’s.  
There is no doubt in my mind that a well rounded education is one of the 
most important elements in maintaining a republican tradition in society.

Most if not all of the geologists and engineers I know make far less money 
than the English majors who headed for the banking industry or the 
publishing industry.  For most of them, the profession itself is their fire 
in the belly, not the dollars they will earn.  They fight to keep their jobs 
to stay doing what they love, but if there are no jobs, regardless of pay, 
they are forced into working in other fields.  That’s a tough row to hoe for 
people who consider themselves professionals.


Nick: Recently Bill Gates bemoaned the fact that not enough American 
students are studying computer science.  Contrary to Phil's claim, engineers 
are in great demand, too.  School districts are bringing in Indian teachers 
to teach math and science because our students are too lazy to major in 
these disciplines.

Phil:  Bill Gates is always moaning about something.  Of course he and the 
computer industry want the market flooded with spare parts, to whit, fresh 
faces that can be hired cheaply.  I can still recall in Geology when the 
supposed shortfall in students pushed schools to ramp up enrollments in the 
late 1970’s, because we were supposedly going to run out of minerals.  It 
glutted the market with geologists which depressed the pay levels very 
nicely for a lot of companies.  By the mid-1980’s lots of those same guys 
were back in school either re-training or getting advanced degrees, but by 
the end of the 80’s, the schools were drastically cutting their programs.  U 
of W has less than 10% of the students in their Geology program that they 
had in the 1970’s.

I can see the same thing will happen if guys like Gates get their ways.  
It’s great for the billionaire, but the pits for the poor guys who end up 
having to work for him.  It’s far better for the schools to gear themselves 
for turning out a steady stream of professionals, than to let the likes of 
Gates or other elements of big business dictate the flow of people through 
the doors of higher learning.


Nick: I did make any general claims on this issue.  I simply quoted Toyota 
officials that the main reason they chose to put the plant Canada was the 
education level of Southern American workers.

Phil:  I gladly amend my comment Nick.  Toyota’s statement is hogwash.  It 
has nothing to do with educational attainment in Southern States and even 
less to do with others suggestions that they get free medical in Canada.  I 
do a fair amount of cross-border work and the principle reasons for doing 
so, even though paychecks in Canada are actually higher than here in the USA 
and the Tax rates are higher as well, is that building a plant is not tied 
up in Red Tape in Canada.  People forget that when you decide to build a 
plant it’s to take immediate advantage of a market and that deciding to do 
so ties up capital.  Protracted delays in being able to get something done 
cost both in getting products to market and in capital costs that can make a 
project turn from positive IRR to negative in a hurry.  When a plant takes 7 
years to permit here in the USA and only a year in Canada, no company will 
not chose Canada, even if there are higher requirements for all other 
things.


Nick:  We also spend the most per capita on medical expenses and we rank at 
the bottom of the industrialized world on all health statistics, including 
the greatest percentage dissatisfied with their health care.

I also discount Phil's figures for length of time spent in school. My former 
wife is Danish and she had ten years of school (no 3-yr.Gymansium), but in 
that time she mastered German and English and was a lively conversation 
partner in areas such as music, contemporary literature, and philosophy.  
She came from a watchmaker's family.

Yes, our students spend a lot of time in school in classes that are 
repetitive and not very challenging.  Most of our brightest students are 
bored silly.  And encouraging students to go to college when they are not 
prepared for it is a gigantic waste of time and money.

Phil:  I found this particular group of comments some of the more 
interesting.

First, your Danish spouse lives in a country in which it is quite common to 
encounter people who do speak a different language.  The whole country is 
about the size of a typical American State.  As a child in Europe, I learned 
languages as well, because not to do so left you isolated.  If each American 
State had a different language, we would see a lot more language studies 
here.

I think that you will find, in areas where we have a higher population of 
non-English speakers, that courses in foreign languages are much better 
attended.

Second, the popular culture of Europe requires a different cultural learning 
which includes many of the areas you mention.

Let me digress for a second though.  A few years ago, I and Chris Storhok 
were down at a local watering hole having a lively discussion with some of 
your Philosophy doctoral candidates.  I would assume that they would be 
folks who were somewhat prepared on a discussion of philosophers, yet when I 
mentioned Plutarch and the variations between his ideas of a republic and 
those of either Cicero or Plato, I got blank stares.  Finally one of the 
kids says, “That guy was a Greek or something wasn’t he?”

So, how did a group of five PhD Philosophy types manage to get through the U 
of I programs and miss Plutarch?  If you are worried about high schoolers 
not being prepared, heck, what about the guys with the degrees?  Only one of 
these guys had ever even heard of Eric Hoffer.

So the Philosophy of education is at root here.  We have a very egalitarian 
approach here in America which says that College should be attended by as 
many people as possible.  Your Danish ex-wife went to a specialized college 
bound High School, so of course she took on more exciting course work than 
out average student does here.  We cookie cutter all of our students through 
a one size fits all program which leaves some students bored due to lack of 
content and other students bored because they see no reason to learn what 
they think they will never use.

The kid who wants to be a truck driver or a mechanic in Germany or Denmark 
goes to a school that teaches him the things he can use for those 
professions.  Here our future truck driver is still expected to at least 
make the effort to learn enough for him to attend college.  And he may 
indeed attend a year or two of University before embarking on his real 
career, because that actual attendance here in the US is worth bucks in his 
pocket.

On the other hand, the kids who are intending to be college trained 
professionals or to study the liberal arts are dumbed down by their High 
School having to tailor the curriculum to students who are not interested in 
College preparation.  So neither group of kids gets the education they 
desire and most of them show up at your doorstep unprepared for the course 
work you want to teach.

But how do you get beyond the American egalitarian ideal, that every kid be 
trained in exactly the same way?  How do you get beyond the idea that every 
kid should be put through school with college in mind?  And are you prepared 
for the shrieks when you tell Mommy and Daddy that little Joey is not 
college bound?  For that matter, is the European system also not full of 
problems as well?


This should be a continuing discussion and has a lot to do with what Moscow 
will be in the future.  Glad to have your thought here Nick and I am 
enjoying the dialogue.

Phil Nisbet

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/