V. ill today, felt like one of the living dead. Not much of note--handed in assessments for my modules. It surprised me, on reflection, that I rated Philosophy almost perfectly and had major gripes with SD. Not because of the content or even the ramshackle way the course is taught, but rather because they keep pounding us with stupid generalizations (management is good! the environment needs protected! we all need to work together!). But I finally got an e-mail back from the course coordinator so I should meet with her and talk about future options in this next week.
Also met with the Mermaids president to talk show stuff. There is a very funny (probably one-sided) feud going on between the "new blood" and "old blood" in Mermaids. The "new blood" complains the "old blood" only cast "old blood" people, and then proceed to cast only "new blood" in retaliation, perpetuating the cycle and causing there to be no difference between the groups. Meanwhile, I cast all Freshers and 4th/5th years, who don't know/give a shit! Anyways, the prez is "old blood royalty" by the standards of "la revelucion!", but he's really enthusiastic about the online show and I'd like to have him involved both for what he can bring (resources, knowledge of St Andrews' weird and wacky ways) and to bridge the imaginary social gap. We mainly just chatted about stuff we were working on and what the main obstacles might be. What I found most interesting and entertaining was his assurance of support. It went something like, "if you need anything, or if anyone gives you a hard time, let me know." Who is going to give me a hard time? It's theatre, not drug trafficking. It was a very sweet and Mafia-like thing to say, and on reflection I think it showed the faux status of the leadership position, where an offer of help comes in the form of protection from bullies. But honestly, all of school government is a hoax, as is (I suspect) much of "management" and "leadership" in that oh-so-distant "real world". It got me thinking about positions of power and responsibility, and just how firmly we create and maintain their illusion. The illusion itself gets you nothing, but its ability to convince others to go along with you is all-important. Directing and the always-competitive theatre friendships this year have got me thinking a lot about power relationships.
But enough about that. Time to go pay my respects at a party and then head off for bed. I'll leave you with some good education bashing from Ben Casnocha's blog today that I found really accurate:
"Here's today's question: Why do so many young people, upon graduating college, have such a hard time finding a rewarding job or a calling?
One explanation: Because to find a job or calling you need to know what you like to do, and by the time you graduate from college formal schooling has eroded your natural radar for detecting things which genuinely excite you.
Think about it...You've just graduated from college. You have just spent the last 17 years of your life in a formal schooling environment non-stop. As a young child, through to adolescence, into your early adult years, an authority figure has been telling you what to read, study, and write, and then judging it good or bad.
Take learning how to write. 99% of the writing you do in school involves offering answers not questions. A teacher gives you an essay topic, and you write about it. Over and over again. Yet, the real word rewards those who themselves can ask the right question. Coming up with an essay topic is 99% of the work -- yet teachers rarely make you do this.
Then there's the formal school philosophy promoting breadth not depth, weaknesses not strengths. If in school you found yourself unusually interested in a particular topic area, you couldn't really pursue it seriously since you had all your other classes to manage. I.e., if you found yourself a math whiz, it's the rare school that will seek to nurture this precocity. Instead, they said if you finish math early, get on with your English, biology and basket-weaving homework.
When parents reviewed your report card, did they ever say, "Wow - an A+! Why don't you continue to focus on that and maybe you can become really good at it?" No. They probably stroked their hairless chin, nodded solemnly at the A, and then pounced on you about the C. Whereas the real word rewards those who can discover and build upon a couple core natural strengths and interests, in school you're taught to pursue a broad balancing act and shore up weaknesses.
So there are two intertwined dynamics in school that I think contribute to the aimlessness of new college grads: an entrenched habit of rule-following (the real world has no clear rules and no clear authority articulating them) and the promoted philosophy of "be pretty good at lots of things as opposed to extraordinarily good at one thing."
Bottom Line: Formal schooling dulls one's exploration of natural interests. To ask yourself what you naturally enjoy and excel at, and then pursue it vigorously, would detract from the balancing act and contradict the authority structure. Unfortunately, asking yourself this very question is the key to a rewarding real-world career!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Casnocha's blog touches on important issues, but falls victim to it's own critique. It provides an unnuanced diatribe that in the end demonstrates the mindlessness it critiques. It claims to trash the way college is taught, but then talks about how parents looks a report cards... something out of high school more than college. And you have to MAJOR in college (maybe Casnocha never attended one?), which means go into depth in a subject. So why have general education courses? Well, it is a good idea to also have some balance... even the physics geek benefits from knowing something about politics and literature. And to become a super expert in any subject these days requires graduate school. But what about totally self-guided inquiry? Pretty inefficient if you are studying a subject that builds on prior knowledge and the body of information is the result of 100s of years of accumulated knowledge. It doesn't mean that students can't look into dark corners and explore new questions (in fact, in academia, that is about all that is rewarded!), but you have to also master the field and that usually occurs most efficiently & effectively by guided learning. Are there Brahmans in academia who try to force their own dogma on everyone they can. Of course. Does that invalidate the whole idea of a course of study? Of course not... at a minimum, how can you intelligently critique something you don't understand!
It does make my heart go pitter-pat that you're blaming the "system" rather parental units. I think this is probably good... Perhaps we did okay after all. I am looking forward to seeing you soon and seeing how you really feel about these issues.
brydawg, i see your points and feel your pain. i too have my qualms with the british school system, but please tell Casnocha to hold his horses! swallace's critique is right on. What Casnocha lacks in clarity he(?)more than makes up for in passion. But life is best lived balanced. Don't you think? besides, to be systematic, there is what you know, what you don't know, what you know you don't know, and finally, what you don't even know what you don't know. so there's you scope. and for depth, well, that is a well contested issue. and then there is the angle, or spin. and no, i am not speaking of the bedroom. but more on that later...
Post a Comment