The first of the old systems is autodidactism. Autodidactism, literally translated from Latin, means "self-teaching," but that's a little bit of a misnomer. Autodidacts actually tend to learn from a wider variety of teachers than their own limited experience, including family and friends, experimentation, books and any number of other media resources. Often autodidacts are intellectual renegades - they have a desire to learn, but naturally rebel against formal teaching.
A wide array of criticisms have been aimed at autodidacts. The first lies in the fact that autodidactism, in certain cases, can be a lonely process (one that is replete of the benefits of teaching and learning from other live human beings). The second is that their education is undisciplined by a general curriculum and that, even when they manage to give themselves a decent education on a subject they are passionate about, they tend to be overtaught in some aspects of that subject and undertaught in others. The last is that the autodidact's "self-image depends on showing that his command of history and politics is an order of magnitude greater than other people’s" (Ezra Klein, TAP), as they have to constantly prove themselves, not having been validated by a degree. One flaw I find is that the human element is removed, and information thus becomes an abstract and not a living process.
But we have other options. One is the Oxford tutorial style, a simple answer to the problem of mass-producing thinking students. The Oxford tutorial style consists of a self-designed curriculum a student pursues, writing an essay each week and regularly meeting with a professorial tutor who criticizes the essays, corrects misapprehensions and challenges assumptions. Learning culminates in an examination, whereby students are evaluated to determine the thoroughness of their understanding and assigned a grade, eventually leading to a degree providing tangible validation for that student.
There are a couple of flaws I see in the Oxford system - one of the oldest formal educational programs in the world. The first is that, while it does allow professors to tailor teaching to individual students' needs, it doesn't provide for one of the most fundamental of those needs, which is to teach. What we read, write and listen to is valuable, but what we teach has exponentially greater staying power in our minds. One other is that, much like autodidactism (but to a smaller extent) it can be a lonely process, despite the fact the student does have a professor to guide them in their journey. The last I consider highly relevant: it costs money. I would hope that one gets a significantly higher value for their dollar (or pound, as the case may be) in this situation than in the traditional higher education system, but human learning on its most fundamental level costs nothing more than time and effort, and it ought to remain so.
Another option is the online university, which I will only discuss briefly. The cost may be more efficient than that of the traditional university, but the problems still remain: it is even more isolating than the traditional university as students are stripped of interaction even with a living, breathing professor and other students, it still costs money (the problem of overpriced textbooks advocated in a classroom still remains) and, well... it countenances all of the issues attached to the traditional universities. The few advantages are a slight monetary cost decrease and the ability to study in the comforts of one's own home - which may or may not (I tend to side with "may") be a crippling disadvantage in and of itself.
The last of the many options I'll discuss here is the trade school. Once again, the problems of the traditional university, with one advantage: lower monetary costs (but, statistically speaking, lower monetary return).
It seems there is no end to the problems we're facing. The most feasible option for having a truly educational experience at the lowest cost seems to me to be autodidactism. And here we have outlined the problems it presents. Perhaps, though, further investigation into autodidactism's shortcomings could yield some answers to its questions. Let us examine some solutions to these problems one at a time.
1. Autodidactism is a potentially lonely process. Any learning that is done by oneself can bear some improvement. After all, as we mentioned earlier, the most effective way to learn is to teach or do. Well, then let us teach or do!
My friend Brandon and I have been experimenting with this concept as of late: we will go to any given library - as they are the most conducive atmosphere for quiet contemplation - with our books, read for an hour, and then teach each other what we have learned in that hour. A recent experience went about like this: I was reading a book on microeconomics and Brandon was reading the autobiography of Steve Wozniak, inventor of the personal computer. I learned a prodigious amount in our four hours of study, not only about microeconomic terms like trade, individual optimization, production possibility frontiers, and property rights, but about dreams, personal ownership, diodes, and transistors. The discussions we had were scintillating and enlightening. It amazes me what profound conclusions can be drawn when two human beings with different backgrounds and perspectives feed each other from the feast of words contained in a book. The ideas that we exchange intertwine and transform and understanding is amplified one hundredfold simply from the fusion.
A second solution to this problem lies in the mentor. It amazes me how willing most people are to proffer their wisdom for free. Take my dad for example. Last night we were playing a popular board game intended to teach sound investment principles and kept noticing the limitations of the game. I suggested that we make the improvements ourselves, changing the format from a boardgame to a computer game. My dad is an extremely successful and experienced software engineer. I suggested that I could write up a plan and text for the computer game and he could do the programming. My suggestion got a lukewarm reception. I reformatted my offer: I could write up a plan, tell him what I wanted to do, and he could teach me how to do it myself.
His attitude changed immediately and he accepted my offer almost without hesitation. Now, the information that I can glean from a professional software developer with more than twenty years' experience in a hands-on environment I would be hard-pressed to receive in a lecture hall. And it's entirely for free. I've signed on my brother to tutor me in my learning of the French language and intend to enlist a close friend of mine who has built, managed and sold a multi-billion-dollar business to mentor me in my study of the fundamentals of accounting, economics, finance and business management. I'll let you know how that one goes.
The propensity to teach is hard-wired into human beings. When something is close to our heart, we are often willing and excited to share it for nothing more than the privilege.
2. Another criticism is that autodidacts are lopsided in their learning. This is clearly true in a genuine self-learning situation. But if we can involve others in our learning, willing to teach and be taught, one aspect of the issue is abated. But it could still be possible that there could be huge gaps in our learning and we could fail to receive a real general education. As for myself, I intend to resolve these two issues through a twofold system of first following strictly a college curriculum for my chosen major, Finance, and secondly testing (but I'll get to that subject a little later).
3. The last criticism I'll attempt to address is the issue of validation. What a shame it would be to have spent hours of study and gained the equivalent knowledge of a bachelor's-degree-holder and have no leverage with employers to show for it. There won't be many - well, any - accounting firms that will hire a student without their CPA, law firms that will hire one without their J.D., computing firms that will hire one without a B.S. in Computer Science or Engineering or... the list goes on.
There is an imperfect answer. To fix this problem completely would entail a complete overhaul of not only the education system, but the hiring system, both of which are thousands of years in the making. So, at least for now, there is some cold comfort that can be offered: the CLEP and the challenge.
The CLEP (College Level Examination Program) basically equals the AP-test for grown-ups. Knowledge one has gained outside the classroom is tested on a mainly multiple-choice exam, the passing of which most universities award credit. But the CLEP has limitations: CLEP tests are offered by the College Board for only a select few classes, mostly general education or entry-level core classes within any major. So there's no test for Advanced Corporate Finance Principles, though a person could conceivably test out of the entirety of their general education.
But there is hope for those upper-level classes. It lies in the challenge-option, which should be offered at most universities, if it isn't already. At the school I was going to last year, to challenge a course is to prove one's breadth of knowledge in the particular area of that course without having to sit in class. The system at the school I was going to last year works about like this: a person wishing to challenge a course contacts the department offering that course and requests to challenge it (I imagine that the greatest roadblock in the process happens right here in this first step) and receives either assent or denial, then picks up a "challenge form" from the testing center, is evaluated by the department offering the course using the equivalent of a cumulative final test or project regarding their understanding of the material covered in the course, a fee is paid (which could constitute a significant roadblock) and credit is received.
For both the CLEP test and the challenge, at least at my last university, no grade is assigned, but performance is based on a pass/fail system.
So, in theory, one could CLEP and challenge their entire way through some university programs. Others are - and should be - totally off limits to this kind of behavior (think of being treated by a doctor who never received a single traditionally-earned credit. I shudder to think). And some things can't be taught by the reading of books and personal experimentation (think the performance of a musical instrument). And I imagine that most universities place some restrictions on this kind of credit-reception.
So I have a great deal to learn about the system myself, and it has imperfections to be resolved from the start. One imperfection is the cost: it sure costs less to pay $77 for a CLEP test than it does to pay upwards of $400 for tuition, fees and textbooks for a class on the same subject, but it still costs. But I would hope that, if multitudes used this as their principle way of getting through college, colleges would begin to recognize the failure of their current system and not necessarily abandon it, but at least radically reform it.
So autodidactism is limited, that is clear. But what about pandidactism? Let us consider a world where every man, woman and child is involved in a network, based out of public libraries, where each teaches and learns from each other for nothing more than the privilege - for that is what is to teach. It is a privilege. It is a pleasure. And it is a duty for each of us. A world where a student of life can enter into the job market without thousands of dollars of student debt. A society that spins a web of learning strong enough to lift the weakest learner and powerful enough to transform, for the better, every person alive. I see it, and I shall endeavour to prove that it can be done, at least in microcosm. But I can't throw this party alone. The music is good and the beer is cold... you want in?
No comments:
Post a Comment