Education - a good idea?

[2ndRateMind]

It has been said, by someone anon, that as education progresses we learn more and more about less and less, until, at last, we know everything about nothing.

Personally, I have yet to find a course of study that completely engages me, though I tend to the 'big' questions of philosophy rather than the more limited issues of science, and the personal angst of the arts.

But I have read, and still read, and keep current with the events of the day.

My question for the forum is; should we advocate breadth or depth in our education system? Should we know a little about a lot, or a lot about a little?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

My question for the forum is; should we advocate breadth or depth in our education system?

In terms of our educational systems I think they demand far too much breadth and not nearly enough depth in terms of what the students are actually trying to learn.

Also, when I was in college I would have much appreciated math courses that were fully integrated with the physics courses I was taking. Taking abstract math courses, while definitely useful, would not have been nearly as effective as taking math courses that were specifically designed for the physics problems I was actually studying in physics classes.

I realize this isn't really the fault of academia since they are kind of stuck with having to teach things generically to satisfy a wide range of students. But in answer to your question I feel that more specificity would have been more productive.

Should we know a little about a lot, or a lot about a little?

For me, the answer to this question is different with respect to my own education versus what I would like to obtain from a university that I am paying for the education.

On a personal level I think knowing a little about a lot has been very helpful for me in a general sense. Far more than knowing a lot about a little. Knowing a little about a lot allows me to easily obtain more knowledge about any specific topic when required. So knowing a little about a lot opens a lot of doors to learning more when it becomes important.

However, when it come to a paid education I would like to focus on precisely what it is that I am paying to learn, and not be required to take a bunch of unrelated courses that only serve to waste my time in terms of my actual academic goals.

There are also subjects that I have no interest in learning at all. Especially not in an academic setting.

I can learn about a lot of things by just watching documentaries. I don't want to waste my academic study time studying things I simply have no serious interest in. All that does, IMHO, is distract and take time away from studying the things that are important to my goals.

So from an academic standpoint I'm all for learning a lot about a small area of interest.

When it comes to learning a little about a lot, I'll watch documentaries.

So in answer to your question:

"Should we advocate breadth or depth in our education system?"

I vote for depth. And make sure the student is interested in learning the specific topic in question. Never force anyone to learn garbage they have no need for. That's a total waste of the student's time IMHO. And it actually distracts them from what they really should be focused on.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Interesting. What you seem to be advocating is deep knowledge as opposed to broad knowledge. And that is a fairly conventional view; certainly, if one proposes to study for expedient purposes, such as qualifying for employment, the more knowledge one can gain about some specific field of human intellectual endeavour, the better. I would not trust a brain surgeon any more because he also had some diploma in accountancy, or an accountant any more because he had a passing acquaintance with neurology. All the pressure is on to gain all one's expertise in a narrow field.

Yet, it has been said that that our problem today is not that generalists are specialising, but that specialists are generalising. In other words, we take the tools of our trade, whether an intellectual scalpel or a conceptual double entry system, and then apply them to every problem that confronts us, both individual and national. How could we do other, if those mental tools are the limit of our inventory?

Meanwhile I have to say, my ambition would be to learn everything about everything; but life is finite, and priorities therefore necessary. So I scan and skim, and occasionally focus in on specific issues that seem to me to be particularly important, urgent, or fundamental. Thus I think there might be a role for this kind of approach in education, which is so far an unmet need. And, unless you have breadth of cognitive bandwidth, as well as depth, I do not see why your average citizen can be expected to make informed decisions about complex political or personal priorities with any hope of accuracy.

Finally, for those who still want a justification in terms of direct personal advantage, there is the matter of 'cross-over' skills. A software developer who has an accountancy degree, or a lawyer with a civil engineering background, can expect way better remuneration than the 'vanilla' varieties of the same professions.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[marco]

Also, when I was in college I would have much appreciated math courses that were fully integrated with the physics courses I was taking. Taking abstract math courses, while definitely useful, would not have been nearly as effective as taking math courses that were specifically designed for the physics problems I was actually studying in physics classes.

The problem with this perfectly understandable approach is that it places on the course designer the decision of what may or may not be useful. It might seem that group theory has little application, but take some enterprising chemist and he will find an ingenious use. Mathematics is full of richness and its applications are open to those that want to explore. That the local engineer sees nothing interesting in the eccentricity of a hyperbola is an indication of his limitations.

[marco]

My question for the forum is; should we advocate breadth or depth in our education system? Should we know a little about a lot, or a lot about a little?

We cannot explore the full range of human learning - sadly. But we can offer our children a vast range, enough to let them choose their fields of interest. Then they will learn more about less, and rightly so.


If usefulness is the criterion, then who is to judge on what is useless. A use may yet to be found, with fantastic consequences. Learning by rote may seem pointless, but in later life the store of quotes we ingested with partial understanding becomes a source of strength. I can recite the third story I did in my first French book when I was 11. In that recitation I am transported to that early world and so it is with myriads of quotes I have learned from a rich past. We are not just flesh and blood - we are the sum of all the snippets we have taken the trouble to learn.

In the wonderful film, The History Boys, the young teacher opines that any knowledge can be put to use but it requires skill to do so. No book is so bad that we can learn nothing from it, they say.

So a broad education to begin with and then, for a chosen few, deep specialisation.That seems the way to go.

[JJ50]

My husband and I believe that the education of children is very important indeed. Our daughters, now in their 40s, were expected to take their school work seriously. They all have degrees, the eldest, an Anglican priest, is doing a part time Ph.D course in theology.