Education - Yes, but at what level?

[Chebass88]

As a parenthetical discussion to MM's "Have you ever confronted a professor?" thread, there is quite a bit of discussion over certain classes, and how they are biased, resulting in angry students, etc., which seems a different topic from the OP's calling the dean a ____.

I wanted to raise a slightly different topic - at what level is education necessary? At what point should there be a professor / teacher?

An example is "World Religions" - My world religions class was based on reading the book, and having a (very) liberal professor outline the structures of the world's religions. It fulfilled my university's "multicultural" requirement, and was a lecture hall filled with 300+ freshmen. Why? Is an 18-22 year old not capable of reading the text and deciphering this information for himself / herself? What value does the professor add, other than to shake people's beliefs up (it will inevitably be offensive to some)? Why not just have an online exam where the student is tested for the content of the course (e.g., "The concept of the Trinity in Christianity involves the ___, ___, and _____." "Buddhists seek to reach _____. Describe it here: _____).

Is the idea to have the wiser / more experienced person inform the less-experienced person which information is important?

Given that college degrees are necessary to obtain decent jobs (at least in the US), is it just the dilution of higher education to appease the masses to allow them to work after college? Are these courses solely for the purpose of offering courses to fill up student's schedules, and the resulting infrastructure to support that objective (physical universities, professors, etc.)?

Best,

ian

[CrispyDelicious]

Postsecondary teaches far more than the subject matter at hand.

[flypejose]

At what level is education necessary? I would say that it always depends on what you’re studying and what you want to do with what you’re studying.

Clearly, if you are studying medical science for instance, two years won’t be enough. Extremely few people would agree to undergo surgery by a surgeon who did only two years in medical school unless he or she is a recognized genius.

On the contrary, social sciences are more loaded with particular worldviews, so they rarely settle issues. Even those with the same worldview remain divided. So the more academic achievements in humanistic social sciences you have, the more authority you will weight in the debates.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Why'd you sign up for the class, then?

[cassanova]

My World Religions professor delved deeper than the book and took us into studies that the book didn't touch such as the less popular religions like Satanism and the occult. He also talked about fanaticism, ritualistic sacrifice, fanaticism, and a ton of other things that escape me.

One thing he did that no book can ever make you do is, he made us go on field trips to different sermons, including Hindu, Muslim, Hebrew, Greek Orthodox, etc. This was a very valuable learning experience.

[sloasdaylight]

I think that at most levels of post secondary, at least up to a Bachelor's degree, there should be a professor/teacher present to help guide students and young adults. I think their role should be to expose them to as many view points as possible and then let them decide.

I have no Masters/Doctorate experience, so I can't comment as to the role of the professor/educator there.

I think, as far as your "Why?" question is concerned. I think it's necessary for professors to expose students to the topic at hand and teach them how to do individual research and analysis into the topic.

[hrodbert696]

Good question! I'm always overwhelmed by the limitations of what a professor can communicate in class (even though I'm told I talk fast and give very dense lectures). It never does more than scratch the surface. Going on to keep reading on one's own and continue learning is something every educated person should be doing with their life in general.

But in my experience, most students need guidance, both to find the right material and to get a framework for putting it all together. There are all kinds of connections between texts, or subtle messages in them, that I find students generally miss if I don't point them out. A professor shouldn't be there just to spew information, but to model the process of investigation and interpretation. That's why you have to have a doctorate to teach, which establishes that you can do and have done original research of your own.

[tplyons]

Sounds like the dealings with a bad professor rather than a bad class. I took several such courses in my college days (liberal arts college, but I assure you, I came out very well rounded, as did many of my colleagues -- some business value that over a severe concentration in one thing ignoring all else)

A professor should invoke thought, encourage discussion, and get you asking the questions. Sounds like your professor is doing none of the above and is wasting your time, but a good professor makes going to class every day interesting, questioning, and certainly a valuable use of your time.

[Chebass88]

Thanks for the replies. It makes a lot of sense that the professor is there to help guide the student to the proper information, and excellent professors can make a subject particularly interesting where most textbook authors cannot.

At what level is the student capable (or should be capable) of deciphering the requisite knowledge of a subject on his own?

[jp58]

That depends on the student and subject. A lot of upper level classes in my major require you to do the reading and research on your own and then discuss the results/findings/problems you have as a group with the professor trying to guide you in the right direction and occasionally testing/quizzing to insure everyone's understanding is up to snuff. I enjoy those classes because I am not confined to one way of thinking and am free to solve problems as I see fit.

The obvious problems with those classes are students not having a solid grasp on the subject or not being mature enough to handle that workload.

[Norwegianwood]

It sounds like you just had a bad lecturer. In general, I tend to dislike huge classes and standard lectures. No matter how good the lecture is, you can usually read up on the stuff on your own (presumably,you can just read his book on the topic!). So coming from my bachelors degree, I would probably agree with the argument that lectures have limited value. However, during the masters degree we had very small classes, and the professors constantly tried to provoke discussion and engage with the students. To have weekly discussions with world-leading experts on the topic you study is surely an invaluable intellectual exercise! You get to test your ideas and argument in "real time". In short, it sharpens your thought. So small class sizes and engaging professors make uni more than worthwhile!

[Deluge Of Sound]

Originally Posted by Chebass88

At what level is the student capable (or should be capable) of deciphering the requisite knowledge of a subject on his own?

Never.

Not that it has to be in a classroom setting, but discourse and dialog are essential to honing your knowledge on any subject. Just look at all the "debate" style threads here in OT.

Now, if you're attacking it from the angle of "learning enough to pass a test," I'd say at the GRE level. You're pretty much on your own for that one.

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Chebass88

An example is "World Religions" - My world religions class was based on reading the book, and having a (very) liberal professor outline the structures of the world's religions. It fulfilled my university's "multicultural" requirement, and was a lecture hall filled with 300+ freshmen. Why? Is an 18-22 year old not capable of reading the text and deciphering this information for himself / herself? What value does the professor add, other than to shake people's beliefs up (it will inevitably be offensive to some)?

[snip]

Are these courses solely for the purpose of offering courses to fill up student's schedules, and the resulting infrastructure to support that objective (physical universities, professors,

You outlined one of the main reasons that a faculty member adds value; they take the discussion away from reliance on a particular religion, and they question the religious programming that some students have acquired before they enter class.

EVERY religion and public policy should be tested. Every one should be questioned. Every student should have the chance to ask what they believe, and much more important, WHY. That's part of the goal of the class. Many students are not well equipped to ask those questions, nor are they inclined to - but if we're going to have an informed citizenry in this country, they need to learn to do those things.

One of the critical purposes of college is to avoid turning out students who accept things without question. To be effective citizens, students need to learn to question the "thou shalt" statements they've grown up with, question the absolutes they've been given which are not really absolutes, and examine the world from a basis of logic and science, not just dogma.

Those humanities classes are not just "filling up your schedule', they are offering you new ways to think and to question reality. That's at least as valuable as the professionally-oriented classes you take.

[Norwegianwood]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

.

One of the critical purposes of college is to avoid turning out students who accept things without question. To be effective citizens, students need to learn to question the "thou shalt" statements they've grown up with, question the absolutes they've been given which are not really absolutes, and examine the world from a basis of logic and science, not just dogma..

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Chebass88

At what level is the student capable (or should be capable) of deciphering the requisite knowledge of a subject on his own?

I'd say that when they realize they need to do their own research and make up their own minds, and are willing to invest some time in doing so, they've reached that point.

Example:

When you hear a religious figure or a politician make a claim or tell you how to behave, and you immediately ask yourself "What is the basis of that claim? What are the facts, really? What is their agenda?"....you're there.

Unfortunately a big part of the US population isn't there.

[Chebass88]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I'd say that when they realize they need to do their own research and make up their own minds, and are willing to invest some time in doing so, they've reached that point.

Example:

When you hear a religious figure or a politician make a claim or tell you how to behave, and you immediately ask yourself "What is the basis of that claim? What are the facts, really? What is their agenda?"....you're there.

Unfortunately a big part of the US population isn't there.

To add to your point, when I was undergrad (graduated 8 years ago), I was not capable of learning for myself. I think I have reached a point where I am able to question things and sort through all of the silly BS. If I were to sit through an undergraduate curriculum now, my experience would likely be dramatically different from what it was in 1998-2002.

I agree about the majority of the population not being able to question things on their own, and that is ok. There will always be a distribution of people, and to put it in terms of Huxley, we need Betas, Gammas, and even Epsilon Semi-Morons just as much as we need Alphas.

Questioning things and being willing to learn requires a tremendous amount of discipline, a determination, as well as training to think. If a professor is capable of doing this without coming across as a pompous @ss, perfect. Encouraging independent thought is excellent - expecting a regurgitaiton of BS is another. In the pursuit of degrees (the ultimate goal), it is far easier to nod your head, regurgitate the silly BS, get the degree and the high-paying job, and continue from there.

As an ancillary issue - I particularly don't like it when graduate students teach classes. The student does not get a discounted tuition rate for graduate student vs. professor, even though there is a considerable difference between fully-burdened hourly rates. They are clearly not equivalent in experience, teaching ability, or sometimes even language abilities. The credits earned are the same, and the effects on the transcript the same, so from the student's perspective, the grad student and professor are equivalent.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Originally Posted by Chebass88

I agree about the majority of the population not being able to question things on their own, and that is ok. There will always be a distribution of people, and to put it in terms of Huxley, we need Betas, Gammas, and even Epsilon Semi-Morons just as much as we need Alphas.

But there isn't a balance, there's an overwhelming majority of unthinking, uncaring citizens. I agree that there will always be a distribution of intellect, interest, and aptitude, but it should be much more of an even distribution than there is now.

[flypejose]

Originally Posted by Chebass88

At what level is the student capable (or should be capable) of deciphering the requisite knowledge of a subject on his own?

There isn’t a unique answer to all branches of knowledge. However, as soon as the student is equipped with the research methodology he or she is good to go IMO.

At that level, student in fundamental sciences could pretty much experience a lot of gratifications and fulfillment in their scientific pursuits whereas those who study Ethics could go nowhere. No settled debates. The opinions of the freshman have literally the same value of that of his professors. In such environment, those who point at others as bigots, soon discover their own hyper-bigotry. Paradoxically, the coveted freedom of thought finds itself in need of an authoritative voice. That’s where political power matters!

[Chebass88]

Originally Posted by flypejose

... whereas those who study Ethics could go nowhere. No settled debates.

There is always the internet!

[hrodbert696]

Originally Posted by Chebass88

At what level is the student capable (or should be capable) of deciphering the requisite knowledge of a subject on his own?

I don't think this is really the question, though I realize it's partly a follow-up to my earlier post. Anyone who can read can read a text and think about it on their own. Conversely, nobody ever reaches a point that they have nothing to gain from hearing what others make of it. So it's really not a sudden turning point when you hit a certain "level," but a sliding scale of how you engage with material.

Where a professor comes into play is as a guide through the mass of material that is out there on any given issue. Supposing a person wanted to figure out the fall of the Roman Empire. The internet is going to be filled with all sorts of contradictory nonsense about it. If they go to the bookstore or to Amazon or to your average public library, they're going to find Gibbon's classic multi-volume set of books on the subject -- from the eighteenth century. There will also be a couple of popular-press books by people of varying qualifications. Most of the really current research and debate on the subject is in books and articles written for academics and priced for research libraries at $100 or more a book, which the average person does not have access to or will not spend the money on, even if they knew how to identify them as the best studies to use.

In other words, even an intelligent layman trying to figure out a complex issue like this is going to be vulnerable to a lot of outdated or outright crackpot opinions, and will not be well-placed to get the actual state of current scholarship.

A professor, however, who specializes in the field will have read the whole span of the above and be able to guide a student to the best current work, and (if he or she is any good) to break down the complexities of the detailed studies into major themes that a student can work with.

Textbooks are of dubious value in an exercise like this. They tend to be written by committee and generally aim at what's supposed to be safe, solid consensus. Unfortunately, that tends to mean that they reproduce the prior generation's ideas, which no current scholar believes in anymore. If there happens to be someone on the committee with a better understanding of any one issue, they can sometimes fix this, but often the textbook is the worst possible guide to the state of knowledge in a field.