[MD] 42

[John Carl]

Arlo,


On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:22 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>wrote:

> [John]
> The main thing wrong is entrenchment.  We have a rapidly evolving world
> but the academic world isn't adaptive enough to keep up with those changes.
>
> [Arlo]
> Is this saying that the content of what, the information as it were, is
> outdated? Some have suggested that instead of information per se, the
> modern world requires more 'information literacy' skills, and this is what
> schools should focus on. Does the above agree with this?
>

John:

Not really what I had in mind.  When I say "more adaptive" I'm thinking
"more diversity".  That is a wider selection of options to reflect the
world which is rapidly splitting.  I see you mention this below so I'll
discuss it more then.

Arlo:


> Also, one of the purposes of a 'less adaptive' academy is to prevent
> against (1) following every latest fad and whim before its evaluated, and
> (2) as with unions/tenure to guard against social winds that masquerade as
> intellectual. Are there ways, in the 'adaptive' setting you envision, to
> protect against these things? Or is it worth it to drop these safeguards
> all together?
>
>
John:  I think educational diversity makes it worthwhile to drop them.
Part of the problem with a monolithic "one size fits all" system is that
you have to figure out the common denominator and teach THAT.  A lot of
good stuff gets behind.  Another problem is that social problems get writ
large.  It became unfashionable to teach home ec and auto shop as part of
the high school curriculum and so they were eliminated everywhere.  In a
voucher system it would make economic sense to start up these kinds of
specialty schools and even the poor would be able to afford them.


> [John]
> Unions and tenure may have served a good purpose in the past but now they
> are part of the problem.
>
> [Arlo]
> Why do you think the 'free market' wasn't able to protect the
> intelllectual level from the social "in the past", but now will do so? How
> would the intellectual level be protected from becoming a servant of the
> social level? How is this different than before?
>
>
John:  Well now that's a different discussion.  I believe the intellectual
level doesn't need protection.  Partly because social patterning is so
ubiquitous that it's impossible to escape anyway and partly because I
disagree with this idea that the levels should be, or are, at war with each
other.  But I guess we'll leave that for another day.





> [John]
> The solution is to open up the field - vouchers.
>
> [Arlo]
> We have already seen a world where a common mediascape has fractured into
> distinct, and often antagonistic, worlds. For many, a valuable goal of
> education is the transmission of shared cultural structures; things every
> American has read, or experienced, or done. Some have said that schools are
> the last remaining "melting pot" (for good or for bad). If we fracture the
> educational landscape into millions of isolated bubbles, do you think this
> would have unintended consequences?
>
>
John:

Well that again is another discussion but I don't think the main effect of
the  mediascape is fracturing, I thinkit's uniting.  I think regional
differences are being lost because of it and I think the melting pot is a
bad idea nowadays.  Who wants a gluey pot of fondue-like sludge as the
basis for a body politic?  To my mind, Federalism and central control are
the problems with the world today and no kind of solution.

Gee Arlo, we disagree on so much.  That's a good thing, we've got lots to
discuss.

Take care,

John