mind_messing
Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote:
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve I don't think the problem is education , it's educators. I went to college from 1979 to 1985 (no , I wasn't trying to do a "Bluto", nor was I particularly stupid , just a series of recall from the US Navy Reserve). After a disastrous 1st year trying to major in political science, I switched my major to history. I'd heard that the purpose of higher education wasn't to teach you information , but to teach you to think, to in effect , learn to use that knowledge. Traditionally that meant studying the classics. (Sorry , I do badly with languages , so no Latin or Greek for me). Once I had my BA , then I would go on to get a technical degree MA. The other thing I did was to pick the oldest , stodgiest professors I could find. I referred to them behind their backs as the "bow tie brigade". What I found was that they generally taught in the "Classic way". I would learn "historiography", the "scientific method" and the most damning and hated (but most effective) of all, "The Socratic method". When these old geezers taught me , I really felt that I learned to THINK. (My high school chemistry teacher used to say every morning "I don't mean to swear at you so early in the morning people , BUT THINK!!!!"). Some of my younger professors didn't get this technique. Or approve of it. I secretly think they were more interested in indoctrination than teaching you to think for yourself , then effectively debate your point of view. Current graduates are as one of my favorite columnist likes to say (Professor Glenn Reynolds of "instapundit" fame) "Today's graduates are CREDENTIALED , not educated". Thank you for chiming in. I consider myself to be somewhat highly educated, having pursued life long studies of astronomy, cosmology, a smattering of quantum physics, military and geopolitical history, art and architecture. What I don't have and have never found the need to seek is external validation, ie...credentials. Many years ago I taught myself technical specification writing for my chosen profession. This is the highly technical side of architecture wherein one must specify everything down to the types and sizes of fasteners. Very few of the 'designer' types ever want to learn it, which makes it a rare skill within the profession, making me a valuable asset and a desirable hire for any firm. About a decade ago I was working in a firm where I was one of only two people with this skill. The other one, a licensed Architect, was constantly pushing me to acquire a Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) certification so I could add CSI after my name on my business cards. I thanked him for the repeated suggestions, but neither took him up on it, nor told him just what I think of 'certifications'. quote:
I consider myself to be somewhat highly educated, having pursued life long studies of astronomy, cosmology, a smattering of quantum physics, military and geopolitical history, art and architecture. What I don't have and have never found the need to seek is external validation, ie...credentials. <<Cognitive dissonance detected>> External validation is a curious way to phrase that. Professional validation would be a more accurate phrase. Given your experience with the architectural profession you'll know the value of working to specific standards, so why would you consider a professional accreditation process illegitimate?
|