nihil, I am afraid I must agree with Lather on one point. In the course of my checkered education, I spent a year and a half at an ultra-progressive school (called, wouldn't you know, "Manumit"). The kids could all write fiery editorials denouncing U.S. foreign policy, but could not do fractions (and this was in 8th grade!). A year and a half was okay; but kids who had spent years at Manumit later found themselves academic cripples.
Schools do have to emphasize basics, if only because it is hard to be creative without knowing the basics. (Not impossible, however.)
Also don't agree that the primary purpose of education in general is to force the student into a mold. It often is ONE of the purposes, but I submit that imparting a certain body of knowledge is still the primary purpose. And if the school succeeds in doing so, it may actually prevent the student from being forced into a mold. In this country, in our day, youngsters are often "molded" by the pressures of mass culture. But one who has been taught to appreciate literature, say, may be less likely to spend his days & nights staring at boob-tube sitcoms.
On the other hand, I have to note that 90% of what I have learned was learned OUTSIDE of school (and I have over 20 years of schooling under my belt!).
BTW, If by "automating education" you simply mean using the computer in education, then, yes, computers can be very useful. (The phrase "automating education" calls up in my mind a vision of students moving down a conveyor belt, a la "Modern Times".) It is especially useful in what is called "distance learning", which has made it possible for people who otherwise would never be able to attend university (the disabled, people stuck in the Australian outback, etc.) to get an advanced education. (I have a sister-in-law and a brother-in-law who jointly edit a journal in the field, and I have been impressed with what is being done.)
C. Vann Woodward was one of my dad's buddies, in days gone by...
jbe |
