Training Kids for a World That Doesn't Exist

From: American Schools Are Training Kids for a World That Doesn’t Exist

Our kids learn within a system of education devised for a world that increasingly does not exist.

To become a chef, a lawyer, a philosopher or an engineer, has always been a matter of learning what these professionals do, how and why they do it, and some set of general facts that more or less describe our societies and our selves. We pass from kindergarten through twelfth grade, from high school to college, from college to graduate and professional schools, ending our education at some predetermined stage to become the chef, or the engineer, equipped with a fair understanding of what being a chef, or an engineer, actually is and will be for a long time.

We “learn,” and after this we “do.” We go to school and then we go to work.

This approach does not map very well to personal and professional success in America today. Learning and doing have become inseparable in the face of conditions that invite us to discover.

AGAINST THIS ARRESTING BACKGROUND, AN EXCITING NEW KIND OF LEARNING IS TAKING PLACE IN AMERICA.

Over the next twenty years the earth is predicted to add another two billion people. Having nearly exhausted nature’s ability to feed the planet, we now need to discover a new food system. The global climate will continue to change. To save our coastlines, and maintain acceptable living conditions for more than a billion people, we need to discover new science, engineering, design, and architectural methods, and pioneer economic models that sustain their implementation and maintenance. Microbiological threats will increase as our traditional techniques of anti-microbial defense lead to greater and greater resistances, and to thwart these we must discover new approaches to medical treatment, which we can afford, and implement in ways that incite compliance and good health. The many rich and varied human cultures of the earth will continue to mix, more rapidly than they ever have, through mass population movements and unprecedented information exchange, and to preserve social harmony we need to discover new cultural referents, practices, and environments of cultural exchange. In such conditions the futures of law, medicine, philosophy, engineering, and agriculture – with just about every other field – are to be rediscovered.

Americans need to learn how to discover....


Sure, it says "America" a lot.

But it be so cool if education were really about learning to discover.

"Having nearly exhausted nature’s ability to feed the planet, we now need to discover a new food system. "   

Based upon that line the author does not seems to be particularity well informed. There is still plenty of food to go around with lots of agricultural land still untilled. The real problem is how the human race unfairly distributes that supply and what they do with it. Also if the author truly thinks only a relevant set of professional skills and a knowledge of society's rules means success, they are deluded.

They are also taking a very heavy technological route. Humans cause stuff, its ok tech will fix it so we can continue to be bad. That is also an outdated mode of thinking and it is losing it supporters. I do not support such a style of thinking myself. Tech does not give us free reign to scorch the earth and there is a limit to what it can do. Just discovering new tech will not fix the root of the problem and may even exasperate it.

Edit - I just went to the link and read the article. I was not impressed that a "Harvard teacher" would refer to students as "dumb". The best teachers I know say there is no such thing a  "dumb student" but just ones that have not discovered their passions and style yet.

I guess. Though using tools is a part of being the human animal, innit? And if the world truly has had enough of revolutionising industrial processes, what can possibly be next? If "we" are not going to spend our time finding better tools and processes, don't we need a very large die off to get the world population back to a sustainable level?

Better tools and process are for the time being always in the pipeline. I have seen video demonstrations of using sound energy to levitate small objects. There are also a number of "fringe" theories about the forgotten use of sonic tech in days past.

I feel ultimately the Human race needs a big attitude check and a major shift of paradigms. Both are unlikely and should such a process start to occur it would be disadvantages for those in control and as such they would probably takes steps to block it. As an extreme example imaging a world without money where some other facto was the motivator for getting work done. The currently rich in terms of financial resources would certainly not be so enthusiastic about such a world.

.... so more vocational courses then? Had those in UK for donkeys....

And there is roughly 10x the current food being produced vs needed. Distribution is the problem.
Us in the EU throw away up to half our food, so there's the problem.

But...

Alongside all his mistakes, the author's claiming something about "discovery". He's saying currently students learn how to do professions as professions have been done, whereas, because reasons, they should instead be learning discovery.

I thought that would be cool. I don't know what it means either. I suspect though he doesn't mean discovery within professions. That is, discovery is meant somehow to be a skill or talent they acquire before being shunted down some particular profession path.

Discovery appeals to me because who doesn't like to synthesize an understanding? And good golly, what if teachers really were allowed to tell students to synthesize an understanding?

Learning discovery is a great idea but easily becomes a fucking horrible teaching method. In high school I had the distinct displeasure of being taught physics via discovery. The teacher, who hadn't previously taught physics, decided that we'd all just discover the laws of physics. My takeaway was that in order to discover, you need to have a foundation upon which to build. Otherwise, 99% of the time you're just a dickhead swinging a pendulum without a purpose.

Off the top of my head, I think students need a mix of memorization, reading/background, analysis, experimentation (with feedback), and discovery.

Better tools and process are for the time being always in the pipeline. I have seen video demonstrations of using sound energy to levitate small objects. There are also a number of "fringe" theories about the forgotten use of sonic tech in days past.

I feel ultimately the Human race needs a big attitude check and a major shift of paradigms. Both are unlikely and should such a process start to occur it would be disadvantages for those in control and as such they would probably takes steps to block it. As an extreme example imaging a world without money where some other facto was the motivator for getting work done. The currently rich in terms of financial resources would certainly not be so enthusiastic about such a world.

The only reality check we need is a reality check to expand, space my friend, Space, Above and Beyond, that's where we need to go. Resources aren't finite, they're just out of reach, as of now. With a bit of rocketry, and a sufficient industrial base, we can boot strap ourselves out of the gravity well, and start to sufficiently spread out the population. Earth eventually becomes just another backwater in the ever expanding Terran Frontier.....
 

Learning discovery is a great idea but easily becomes a fucking horrible teaching method. In high school I had the distinct displeasure of being taught physics via discovery. The teacher, who hadn't previously taught physics, decided that we'd all just discover the laws of physics. My takeaway was that in order to discover, you need to have a foundation upon which to build. Otherwise, 99% of the time you're just a dickhead swinging a pendulum without a purpose.

Off the top of my head, I think students need a mix of memorization, reading/background, analysis, experimentation (with feedback), and discovery.

I recall in high school trying to "discover" mathematics on my own. I'd search ahead in the text book trying to discover why I'd gotten this or that test question wrong. It was awful. Thus, I conclude, there're arts and techniques to "discovery", without some semblance of which discovery is just guessing. I suppose the original article to be suggesting that introducing students to those arts and techniques is a good idea. (Whereas, the author might presumably say, merely asking them to guess is a bad idea.)

Discovery has its uses, though I have already said my opinion on the author not actually knowing what he is talking about.

An example that comes to mind is cooking. You can learn what goes good with what but it just does not work the same was as experimenting and testing. Most of the great chefs have a kitchen that they use as some kind of food lab and nothing else.

Historically a lot of the practical scientific knowledge came from discovery via experimentation but as mentioned they had a foundation on which they could use interpret and explain any discoveries. There have been some cases such as the light bulb where a lot of trial and error was used but the would be creators knew to make light they would need to make something burn hot in a controlled manner and had at least a basic understanding of the principles behind it.

He's saying currently students learn how to do professions as professions have been done, whereas, because reasons, they should instead be learning discovery.

In my opinion, students learn to do jobs.  A job can become a profession.   A professional is always discovering.

From: Why Experts Reject Creativity

People think they like creativity. But teachers, scientists, and executives are biased against new ways of thinking.

Researchers Kevin J. Boudreau, Eva Guinan, Karim R. Lakhani, and Christoph Riedl recruited 142 world-class researchers from a leading medical school and randomly assigned them to evaluate several proposals. Sometimes, faculty were experts in the subject of the submissions they read. Often, they were experts in other fields. But in all cases, the experiment was triple-blind: Evaluators did not know submitters, submitters did not know evaluators, and evaluators did not talk to each other.

The researchers found that new ideas—those that remixed information in surprising ways—got worse scores from everyone, but they were particularly punished by experts. "Everyone dislikes novelty,” Lakhami explained to me, but “experts tend to be over-critical of proposals in their own domain." Knowledge doesn’t just turn us into critical thinkers. It maybe turns us into over-critical thinkers....

Experts might be particularly biased against new ideas*, but most people aren't too fond of creativity either. In fact, they can be downright hostile.

A 1999 study found that teachers who claim to enjoy creative children don't actually enjoy any of the characteristics associated with creativity, such as non-conformity. A famous 2010 study from the University of Pennsylvania showed that ordinary people often dismiss new ideas, because their uncertainty makes us think, and thinking too hard makes us feel uncomfortable. "People often reject creative ideas even when espousing creativity as a desired goal," the researchers wrote. People are subtly prejudiced against novelty, even when they claim to be open to new ways of thinking....

American culture worships creativity, but mostly in the abstract. Most people really don't like new ideas that sound entirely new, particularly the experts that often have to approve them. The trick is learning to frame new ideas as old ideas—to make your creativity seem, well, not quite so creative.