I am now a double drop-out

[a completely inoffensive name]

There's a good argument to be made that any inquiring mind can get whatever kmowledge they want for free these days. With nurturing from the state and an investment in providing everyone with affordable high speed internet we could make the casual liberal education more or less obsolete.

In the USA right now most degrees aren't worth the paper they are printed on, let alone tens of thousands of dollars in debt. The lengthy and expensive liberal education is pretty much nothing but an intentional wall to block the young from entering into their fields of choice without first entering into massive debt and a position of submission.

I don't know what the future of education looks like, but the present system itself is surely a joke.

Information without a guide to train you on how to think is pointless and would only serve to hurt us rather than benefit us. The liberal education fails because there is nothing "liberal" about it when it is widely recognized that some ideas or approaches are "just not in fad" or taken seriously. The hubris of post-modernism is that it knows better than you because it knows nothing and this absolute statement locks down dissenting opinions and it is because post-modernism has become so widely accepted that the issue has compounded to the point where education has now suffered tremendously.

If you think the "modern day" thinkers will be born out of educational Youtube videos while they munch on potato chips and self discipline, you are deluding yourself.

[Kralizec]

What was the masters' program actually called?
I mean: as far as I know, post-modernism is a general attitude towards previous theories and methods. Wether it's art, philosophy or social science. I tried skimming the wiki article on this but it was tl;dr at this hour.

Also:

"human rights exist by use of language alone and to serve the bourgeois class"

What part did offend you:
1) human rights do not have an independant existence beyond the thoughts and words that are in vogue
2) the marxist bit about it serving the bourgeois class

#1 is actually debatable. I have my own theory on human rights, based on social contract, but I'm also of the opinion that much of which is passed as "human rights" nowadays doesn't really deserve the name.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I have my own theory on human rights, based on social contract, but I'm also of the opinion that much of which is passed as "human rights" nowadays doesn't really deserve the name.

Please, elaborate for our benefit.

We have been combating nihilism for some time, my understanding is that a rejection of rights comes from the heart of the nihilistic problem that we all face.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Train how to think? Guide? The parents should teach kids how to think. If you don't teach your kids to read books and be critical of everything, you are a terrible fucking parent. Beyond that, you absolutely can get every nugget of true knowledge that constitutes traditional liberal education for free. If one is to get a degree saying that they are worth so much money, that degree should be highly technical and specific in nature. I'm pretty sure that's the future. Will it be more egalitarian? Probably not. I think this will actually come about through de-regulation, as the public school system is patently crap. The right will win this one, to a degree.

My point is that a liberal education is not actually about knowledge but the application of it in a sophisticated way. Training how to think is not simple kid stuff, like "look both ways before crossing the street". It's what happens when you have been staring at the board for 6 friggen hours wondering why nothing is making sense or working. You need to have tools that enable you to look at things in multiple ways and have exposure to multiple mentalities in order to have the flexibility to develop rational solutions. Parents are not part of the equation at all, because it requires multiple people with years of experience under all of their belts to provide a diversity of thought and challenges for your brain to adapt towards a critical thinking mentality. Hence the point of a traditional university.

But if you think that people will continue to spend 4-6 years in college for a crappy job (if any) and crippling debt, you're the one deluding yourself.

I don't believe that at all. But I also don't believe that abstaining from traditional university in favor of the internet will do jack all towards properly educating them.

I agree that few if any people can actually self-educate. If the future is distance-learning then it will almost certainly require structure and standards, hence "Nurturing from the state." But the status quo is definitely going to change. Its just capitalism. People won't pay for something that isn't worth it for long, and right now the higher educational institutions of this country are riding a wave of hope rather than actually trying to adapt.

What entails "nurturing from the state"? Traditional universities will have their bubble pop, I agree with you completely, but there is no concrete structure for an alternate system of higher education that does not fall back on wishful thinking or vague generalizations about the present and trying to apply it towards the future.

[Husar]

I don't believe that at all. But I also don't believe that abstaining from traditional university in favor of the internet will do jack all towards properly educating them.

What entails "nurturing from the state"? Traditional universities will have their bubble pop, I agree with you completely, but there is no concrete structure for an alternate system of higher education that does not fall back on wishful thinking or vague generalizations about the present and trying to apply it towards the future.

I present you the Hole in the wall-project:

http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com

The basic idea is to set up computers with information on them so people can go and educate themselves on subjects. And it seems to work rather well. I heard in an experiment a class that was left alone with such a computer in order to learn about a certain biology subject got comarable test scores to a class taught about the subject by a teacher.

And who invented thinking? Countless teachers have tried to teach me how to think in mathematics and I'm still rather bad at it whereas in other subjects is much less of a problem. Different people have different approaches to different subjects and unstructured information can be taken by everyone in her or his own way while the same information structured by a teacher helps those who are structured like the teacher more than those who do not structure information like a teacher at all. Just look at how in one class some people may say this teacher is great while others say they do not understand her at all.

[HoreTore]

I present you the Hole in the wall-project:

http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com

The basic idea is to set up computers with information on them so people can go and educate themselves on subjects. And it seems to work rather well. I heard in an experiment a class that was left alone with such a computer in order to learn about a certain biology subject got comarable test scores to a class taught about the subject by a teacher.

Ah, the good ol' "Granny ped"... Always top of the list of "things I really want to try out, but never got around to" back in teacher training...

Contrary to what you may think, the teacher is actually crucial in that theory. It requires a person who can give constant positive feedback.

Btw, I start every new topic I teach in a way containing the same principles as granny ped. It does have its merits.

[Husar]

Ah, the good ol' "Granny ped"... Always top of the list of "things I really want to try out, but never got around to" back in teacher training...

Contrary to what you may think, the teacher is actually crucial in that theory. It requires a person who can give constant positive feedback.

Btw, I start every new topic I teach in a way containing the same principles as granny ped. It does have its merits.

You're right. I forgot about the constant positive feedback, doesn't have to be a teacher though, it can be someone who has no idea about the subject. One of our professors actually told us about this last week, he also mentioned how he studied very theoretical things himself long ago and used to look down on engineers until he looked into engineering himself and found that it's actually a much more fulfilling and useful field than just thinking about theoretical concepts of the world.

[HoreTore]

doesn't have to be a teacher though, it can be someone who has no idea about the subject.

That's what's called "a teacher"

[Husar]

That's what's called "a teacher"

In Norway perhaps, apparently even a double dropout can be a teacher there.

[The Stranger]

Train how to think? Guide? The parents should teach kids how to think. If you don't teach your kids to read books and be critical of everything, you are a terrible fucking parent. Beyond that, you absolutely can get every nugget of true knowledge that constitutes traditional liberal education for free. If one is to get a degree saying that they are worth so much money, that degree should be highly technical and specific in nature. I'm pretty sure that's the future. Will it be more egalitarian? Probably not. I think this will actually come about through de-regulation, as the public school system is patently crap. The right will win this one, to a degree.

But if you think that people will continue to spend 4-6 years in college for a crappy job (if any) and crippling debt, you're the one deluding yourself.

I agree that few if any people can actually self-educate. If the future is distance-learning then it will almost certainly require structure and standards, hence "Nurturing from the state." But the status quo is definitely going to change. Its just capitalism. People won't pay for something that isn't worth it for long, and right now the higher educational institutions of this country are riding a wave of hope rather than actually trying to adapt.

what if nobody ever taught the parents how to think?

[Sigurd]

About ridiculing academics.

I am a Practician in my field but will meet a few so called "academics", that will theorize about solutions rather than look at the mechanics on site and thus solve based on findings.
I can get quite worked up by statements like: In theory, this should work. Yes of course in theory, but you haven't factored in equipment stand-still in a very hostile environment. If an engine is left unused and exposed to the arctic offshore weather for 12 months, don't be surprised if it turns out it is completely ruined.
Worst of them all are the entrenched academic who is rooted in nostalgia and tradition. A tradition based on false notions. "We don't do it that way as we have never done it that way".... well you do it because someone made a bad judgement call eons back. Your equation has a bad element.

I think that it is just a matter of perception.
An example that I remember from this forum is the statement (no intent to ridicule the person): The Antarctic is the driest place on earth. I remember exclaiming: "Thus speaks an academic. A practician would say: You'll never lack for water on Antarctica".