Conversations with MV

2/4

TH: 

Is our system a system that expedites true specialization; or do we need a system that facilitates flexibility in thinking and knowledge, due to the pace of change in society?

It’s a question of the importance of specialization/non-specialization. The current paradigm is specialization driven. Is our system one of increasing specialization? Or, and this is what I’m thinking, it’s a way to help facilitate that flexibility in thinking while still orienting students toward what they have aptitude for/what the society “needs” at the time.

Indeed, I don’t think moving away from specialization in education is counter to our “idea.” I think it might actually be the crux of our idea.

My problem with this is simple: isn't it the case that precisely because the work force is changing, specialized degrees are ultimately counter-productive; wouldn't it be beneficial for the education system to facilitate developmental foundations and increasing understanding of personal aptitude, rather than in every field offer specialized degrees? Of course were going to need specialists in medicine for example, perhaps… but my job does NOT need a specialized degree. Your job doesn't necessarily need a specialized degree, but the overall ability to manipulate abstractions and understand patterns that operate within a certain legal framework. That doesn't require a specialized degree, necessarily. 

I don’t know… this all depends upon one’s view of the current system. I definitely think that it doesn't prepare people for the job market, because there is no incentive structure built into the education system from day one; rather, when people are interested in something that doesn't necessarily “pay,” they are discouraged and sent off to do something they would rather not do. I think the system should be oriented to help children and learners be helped along their path of aptitude to give them better understanding of their options when they are forced to choose a specialized path.

But we need to define what we mean by specialized. Because an education path that caters to something very specific, as you said, could become futile with a chance technological innovation. Perhaps the primary MAJORS in our system should be the general foundational majors, and the specializations should be addendums that utilize the virtues of the general majors.

I think the system requires reform. It’s a potential paradox: specialization is a difficult problem. I’m torn on how I feel about this. In one respect, the system is effective in sculpting people into agents with specific functions; though I’m not so sure increased specialization is the answer. However, there seems to be some intuitive problem with the way the system gives people too much freedom to choose degree programs and specializations that the society either does not want or does not need. 

How do we balance? On the one extreme, we force people into specializations. On the other, people are given complete freedom. (There are many questions here, obviously). We fall in the middle, recognizing that specialization is necessary, but we are arguing for a more efficient way to train people into fitting into specializations that the market might be pulling them towards.

I still agree with our system’s structural principle. There needs to be a better way of creating an informed, effectively influential populace. The system should work to improve itself, not degrade under the weight of the burden of too much freedom. It’s an odd paradox: complete freedom is too extreme. Our early childhood education should be a process to facilitate aptitude, to lead learners through a process toward specialization that they can be passionate about. 

Yeah… after reflection, it’s a drastically more difficult problem than I imagined initially. But I still think it is worth exploring this idea; of reforming the education system to allow for more wherewithal for the kids. More awareness of their own strengths not thrust into a world of almost randomness. 

MV: 

I think our system increases specialization in some capacity.  The issue I've been debating in my head today is how well our system would work with a changing work force.  Our system is designed around the idea of getting rid of generic degrees.  So instead of being an English major, you major in some major field (legal document writing) and then minor in English.  What happens if legal document writing becomes automated then?  The specific degree is now completely worthless......while a more ambiguous, generic degree in English would retain value.  Perhaps.  However, the argument for our system is that once you are an experienced worker - your degree means less and less anyway.  So someone with an English degree and 10 years of specialized work experience is essentially pigeon holed anyway.  The specificity of the education does amplify this which creates a lack of flexibility in the work force which can create economic problems at a macro level under certain circumstances.  

It is an interesting discussion.  Specific education would help our current situation because it would help get you into a job.  However, specific education would have killed the economic boom of the 90's.  So when designing a system, we must consider far more than our current situation.  

Well, aptitude and education are separate.....and then they are not.  Upon reading your thoughts I immediately thought - well, if we had a reliable means with which to gauge aptitude then why do we need advanced education at all?  If you major in something broad, then a business will have to train you to teach you the specifics.  What is the point of the degree then?  Why not just have the business hire based on aptitude and teach the specifics that it would otherwise have to teach anyway?  

It seems to me that the major function of education, in the current system, is to rank people.  I can judge a person’s aptitude based on how highly ranked their school is and their GPA.  I know a person who majors in finance will have a higher aptitude with numbers than a person who majored in English.  The current system allows for that type of thinking, from the perspective of the hiring agent.  The hiring agent can also assume a basic understanding of the specific systems in place.  I know a finance major will understand a few basic principles that an English major probably won't have knowledge of.  So aside from ranking people, a degree provides some very basic value.  But it seems like the primary point is the rank people. 

Perhaps the question then is, when you say that our current system doesn't prepare someone for the job market - how would a less specialized system do any better?  It seems to me that the only way to prepare someone for the job market more efficiently is to become MORE specialized......which then runs the risk of being incapable of adaptation to technology.  

Also - while our jobs don't need degrees.....someone with a finance degree would be significantly more likely to have an aptitude for my job than someone with a different degree.  There are exceptions, but hiring is based on probability.  The problem with higher education is that there are degrees where aptitude is unclear and probabilities are impossible so these majors are often ignored.  An English major might have aptitude in what?  Organization of ideas?  Creativity?  Operating within a defined rule set (grammar)?  Reading comprehension?  It is too vague of a concept.  Finance is more concrete so it is easier for hiring agents to understand it.  The problem still remains, to help an English major and a hiring agent find some kind of link where they understand each other - you have to make the degree less vague and therefore more specialized.  

The basic link is that hiring agents want a specific skill set (or aptitude in a specific area) so they are looking for education that speaks to that specific skill set (or aptitude).  The specificity of employment demand seems to warrant MORE specific education.  

To create less specific education would create a more adaptable work force; however it would make the problem of hiring even more of a problem.  A balance must be struck between the two ideas.  You need a work force with specific knowledge but also flexible enough to survive innovation.  

I still argue that solving the problems of today would require more specialization.......however I also think this would cause problems in the future.   

So I am less convinced today that our idea is a good one.  

Well maybe not.  Our system would guide people of a certain aptitude into a customized education that fits their skill set (intellectual strengths).  This would make the assumptions that employers already make increasingly accurate.  

At the back end (the college level), the idea would be to get rid of majors that have no employable value.  However, building that curriculum into majors that have employable value.  For instance, business school does this already.  You go into a business school because you think you like business admin - you end up specializing in marketing, finance, accounting, strategy etc. The degree is both broad and focused at the same time. 

I guess social science majors would have to get pulled into the appropriate degree (teaching, econ and perhaps a handful of others) and then what we know now as English, Philosophy, history etc. will be more meaningful minors.  So you will end up with a specialized degree because the minor will have meaning, but the degree will remain broad because of the major. So someone with a degree in Econ with a minor in history will have a broad understanding of econ with a solid basis in history.  This isn't really any different than today's system, however we are basically guiding students better and getting rid of degrees with no employable value.  

Perhaps the weakness in today's high school system is that someone with an aptitude for social science does not have access to more employable subject matter.  There are really no econ classes in high school so a student might fall into an English major simply because they haven't had the exposure to econ or another subject that the same aptitude levels would apply towards.  

However, by limiting the choices of college degrees......we are forcing some level of specialization; however it isn't so specialized that it is restrictive.  We know that econ will be a meaningful degree as long as humans engage in exchange of goods (the foreseeable future).  English is a broader degree, but it is too broad.  

I don’t know, maybe the current system isn't so bad as long as we simply got rid of the degrees that have no employable value and improved the k-12 experience.  

2/5:

TH:

Such an interesting discussion yesterday.

I have many thoughts, though hashing them out in any structured way will be difficult. First of all; why are we intent on reforming the education system in the first place? Does it not work as it is? I don’t think it works as it could work. Further, what evidence is there that suggests the current system doesn’t work as well as it could? Is the evidence based on assumptions we are making about society at large? I think that is probably a large part of it. However, our views on the way society functions are probably fairly different, though they converge on many points. My problem right now is that I can’t stop my brain from zooming way out and looking “down” over the system; the problem area(s) start with education; but why? Because it seems there are way too many futile, unproductive people in the world. Part of that is because of the system. The system gives people the freedom to pursue their own ends. If their ends do not conform to the goals of the system, their ends are often out of reach; the primary example of this problem is what you’ve focused on already: degrees. Fruitless degrees yield no fruit; not because in and of themselves they are fruitless, but because the system is oriented in such a way as to not reward people for the skills they obtain from those degrees. This is a systemic problem; the problem thus, for me, is simply this: the system is a material condition of great complexity that is determined by what it desires… production and sustainability. Whatever the results of those desires are (greater efficiency in manufacturing, better technology, better service industry, etc etc); people pursue degrees to fit into a structure that ideally facilitates some goal within that paradigm. If that is the only paradigm, then the education system must be restructured to facilitate that goal.

However, perhaps society needs reformation on a very general level. Perhaps productivity and sustainability are going through a paradigm shift; with increases in technology (as we’ve mentioned), many jobs are no longer in existence. The demand for specialization will maintain itself, but the specialization needs to be more “broad” in scope; that is, people need to be prepared to work many types of jobs over time, and perhaps no longer think in terms of long term, single job lives. Degree programs should specialize in creating a broad skillset that focuses on certain disciplines. Our major/minor distinction is important here; if, for example, an individual emerges from our new education system with a focus in finance and economics; his skills should also have developed in such a way as to orient him toward policy implementation and political ethics/morality. Education shouldn’t mold someone into a niche, because society is necessarily a changing entity; in virtue of its complexity, and the drastic increase in technology advancement, our understanding of the world is shifting. People should be trained to be flexible, to be able to work many kinds of jobs.

I’ve run out of time, but yeah…  

MV:

Well, one thought I suppose is that the education system is not the issue.  People are the issue so therefore to fix the "problem", which will need to become a defined term, we will need to somehow provide means with which to fix people. 

I think I've used this line of thinking before - but economics majors and business majors are a great example.  There are econ/biz majors that land in those fields simply "because", and those people typically land in low paying, meaningless jobs.  Then there are econ/biz majors that have a true passion for the field and they end up with more meaningful and better paying work.  There are multiple layers to this of course.  People with "passion" could simply be harder workers or less lazy or more intelligent or from the right background with the right parents and the list goes on and on.  That is the complexity to this.  How do you disect that onion and determine what factors are the difference between the person with "passion" and the person without?  And then how do you manipulate those factors to increase the pool of people who have a "passion"?

A seperate issue is the issue of people having a passion for education that has no employable value.  You are the prime example of that.  Philosophy has no employable value when compared to other majors, however you are gifted with it and have a passion for it.  So how did the system fail here?  Is it a failure that a philosophy degree exists?  Perhaps there is a failure of expectations.  People who major in degrees such as this should be warned quite severely that the employability of the degree is essentially zero.  The degree can exist for people who have the time and money to pursue it, not for people who are primarily focused on education as a means into the work force. 

However, I'm willing to bet that another failure is present in the system in regards to these types of degrees.  I'm thinking that many individuals who end up in these degrees are people who end up "lost" in the system.  You gravitate towards something that you find comfortable.  English.  History.  Philosophy.  Art.  These are things that could easily be hobbies for many people and there is a comfort there.  Comfort does not neccesarily mean a level of aptitude.  However, if you are a mediocire highschool student that enjoys writing then you may just wind up as an english major because that is your comfort zone.  It also does not exclude aptitude.  These degrees seem aptidudely ambigious to me.  There are infinite reasons for people to gravitate towards "comfort" degrees.  ADHD, depression, lack of guidance, lack of exposure to other subjects, lack of understanding of one's own self, lack of understanding of the job market etc etc etc.  Having a system that addresses these problems is also infinitely challenging. 

HOWEVER - it seems to me that one of the biggest areas of concern is the lack of guidance provided to young people.  This might be a paradigm shift.  In the past - the family was a stronger core unit and it seems to me that it is possible that the responsability of guidance is shifting from the household to the "system".  I'm biased towards my own life of course.  I received a lot of guidance from my parents/brothers/relatives/friends/friends parents etc.  It is most likely that this social structure I grew up in is what fostered my mentality towards work and education.  I'm driven towards things because I've been focused on them since a young age and that focus derived from the environment I grew up in.  It seems more and more likely that this environment must be provided by the "system" because the family is no longer capable of providing this is many cases. 

Which leads is into more of a political science and philosophy (with perhaps law and history) discussion of the role of government and society?  I'm not really interested in going down that path because it seems less practical (by means of being more outside our level of influence).  The point is that I'm becoming less convinced that the education structure is the root issue.  There seems to be more of a macro-societal inefficiency.  The question then is - is the inefficiency a chronic problem or is it just the result of constant change?  Whenever there is change there will be inefficiency.  It is inherent and acceptable.  We went through massive change as a society in the past 20 years and I think society is struggling to evolve.  The issue for us then is what ideas do we have to aid that evolution?  What future do we envision and what type of tactical actions are neccesary to ensure a safe transition into the future?  

TH: 

Very nice.

All very good points. It is a truism that the people are the problem – That is always the case, simply because people make up the society. This is my biggest focal point in philosophy of society, etc… The system is comprised of people, and people influence the system. However, we are at a point in history, if you will, in which the system is so entrenched that it is very difficult for the people, in the strict sense, to alter its course; rather, it is now bound up by the influence of larger, more influential entities. These are obvious points to make; but it is important to acknowledge that the education system is one of those entrenched institutions that pushes back hard against change precisely because those “larger entities of influence” have their grips on it.

Education as a system is perhaps the wrong way to go about it then, or rather, the wrong lens through which to examine the problem and offer a solution. Perhaps education ought to encompass a wide range of learning that, as you mentioned, pervades the home and the family, and creates conditions for people who didn’t grow up with rich family influence (rich in the qualitative sense… not money). However, we encounter the issue of the age old debate; freedom vs government/institutional intervention. It’s a problem with the kind of complexity that inherently exists in the system.

We grew up in completely different situations. I grew up with no direction whatsoever. I was allowed to make my own way without the kind of guidance that facilitated good, preparatory decisions. And I’m dealing with the consequences of my upbringing every single day. You’re right though; regardless of the environment, in some sense, aptitude is often able to persevere through influence; it’s just that the aptitude of an individual can be utilized in ways that do not facilitate sustainability for the individual and thus, right on down the generational line. Of course there are ways to break that chain, but yes, that is most definitely the issue in our society. Families no longer, in a broad sense, “guide” their children along a certain path, but rather, for many sociological reasons--parents work more and harder, are more distracted by media and technology, are also products of the same kinds of families that didn’t guide their children… etc—and as a result there are generations of children in the same boat as me, and, perhaps these are too broadly generalized to be verifiable, but perhaps not as many children like you who grew up with that rich family influence that guided you to where you are.

You’re right, these are very complex philosophical and sociological problems. Indeed, all social science disciplines are needed to understand these problems. Which brings me to my next point:

If the problem is inherent in the system, and the system is composed of families who do not facilitate the kind of developmental setting that helps children become “agents,” as it were, and as such people find themselves in degree programs that either don’t satisfy them existentially, and thus create wealth but not health, or they find themselves in the job market with “unemployable” degrees, and perhaps do not have the material conditions necessary to facilitate happiness and wealth; then there is something to be said about these unemployable degrees that ought to be used to help explore and understand the conditions through which these problems emerged. In a lot of ways, we encounter a negative feedback loop – because our system demands the kind of degrees that in a lot of ways, sustain the very problems – more work to obtain more specialized degrees, more hours on the job, less family time--- etc etc.

Yeah… I wish I had more time to sustain my trains of thought, but I’m constantly interrupted due to my unfulfilling job that I have only to make money that my unemployable degree landed me.

MV: 

Look at you defending your unemployable degree haha.  Well played sir. 

I think the family vs society thing is the real issue.  Arielle has an associates degree and finds herself in a very "employable" state of being.  She also had that rich family upbringing that you discussed.  It seems based on this microcasm that the upbringing trumps the degree, regardless of degree type or field. 

It should also be noted that we are making very broad sweeping generalizations.  A specialized degree does not neccesarily mean more time spent at work and less family time.  I think we may be both putting too much weight on degrees in general.  You spend 4 years in college and 40+ years working.  The degree leads to a job and acts as a first step down a path, however there are countless other steps in a human life. 

Specifically - I'm thinking about the problem you brought up.  The system demands degrees that do not focus on adjustments to the system.  However - it seems to me that a 4 year degree could not possibly prepare someone to make adjustments to the system.  It is more likely that someone would have to spend 20 years studying the system to really understand it.  These types of people would likely have advanced degrees + advanced work experience. 

So my new question - when weighing the grand scale of a human's life - how important is the degree choice?  

TH:

Good questions.

Interesting. This goes back to how our discussion began in College Park. The assumptions we make based on value determine whether or not something has any inherent “worth” to society. Quite literally too; if the market devalues something, it’s because the “agents” that act within the market determine that valuation assumption. So weighting degree choices on a subjective spectrum influenced by sociocultural/sociopolitical/market-driven assumptions is difficult to do beyond merely pointing what dominates the professional milieu.

The grand scale of a human life includes how one is oriented professionally, personally, etc and their attitude/feeling in regards to that orientation. A degree, in our society, either situates someone effectively toward pursuing some goal (namely, income which allows for the pursuit of basic needs), or does not situate them effectively at all toward those goals. The way the system exists now, it seems obvious. But I guess it depends on your view of our society, politically/culturally. Is it successful? Is the economic crisis evidence that it is not successful/efficient?

All these factors and more play into it. So a reformation of the education system might be a process worth considering depending on where you fall intellectually in this labyrinth of conditionals.

Yeah. So we may not have anything to contribute at all; regardless, thinking about social well being and political efficacy and cultural success through the lens of education reform is interesting. 

MV:

I think this discussion is more interesting from the lens of "how did we get to where we are now?".  And it seems, efficient or not, the system makes sense based on the questions we are asking.  It makes sense in the sense that it seems to have followed a logical evolutionary path, not in the sense that it is the best system one could imagine.  There is this constant balancing act between financial motivation and intellectual motivation.  Between specialization and generalization.  Between the demand for jobs and the demand for quality of life.  The balancing act, when looked at through the lens of education, is seen fairly clearly which is why I agree that it is an interesting lens.  Seeing something clearly doesn't make it any less complex of course, but it does seem helpful in understanding the system. 

I think education is somewhere in the middle of the "process" of a human life, which is why it provides a nice 360 degree view.  Your childhood environment will, to a certain degree, dictate what field you choose to study in.  All the numerous factors, your parents occupation, your friends, your lifestyle, your income bracket.....those will dictate your interests.  Of course - at the macro level, there are always exceptions.  So your environment --> education --> career.  Education being in the middle gives a solid understanding of the push/pull between all other facets of life.  The system essentially enables/inhibits the flow of one human through this process.  In theory, the best system would ensure the best environment, allowing one to have the most effecient education and go on to have the most meaningful career (based on self actualized value, not money). 

The difficulty lies in how vast the system is.  Having a bad relationship can throw off this process.  Should the system account for that somehow?  Having a child, having a car accident, having a death in the family, moving, etc etc.  There are so many variables.  It can be reasonably said that it is impossible for a system to account for all of them.......so therefore the system must decide which variables it should/can control and which it should/can ignore. 

This brings us back to the role of government, simply because in our current situation it seems likely that government is the only agent powerful enough to effect the system.  Of course, the government agent is an agent made up of many agents.  To become one of those agents you must go through the system, which seems to bias certain environments, educations and careers into the path towards agency.  Therefore, our agents (assuming they act morally), are making decisions based on their own biased, limited knowledge of the system which is likely to have a complete lack of diversity in thought and background. 

So the original idea, at the macro level, was to find a kink in the system that would throw society out of this negative feedback loop.  Changing the environment is unlikely, because it requires agents to choose to do so and the negative feedback loop blocks this.  This CAN be done at a micro level by motivated individuals and groups, but would likely be more grassroots than systemic.  Education could do this, however we run into the problem of the balancing act (paragraph 1). 

Perhaps, instead of having specialized education accross the board......we have a focused plan for civil service.  We identify individuals who have certain aptitude towards the skill set required in policy making and allow them an option that provides a clear path into government.  Ideally, we create a government agent that is representative of the population as a whole.