Quotes from "The New Global Student" - what's your take?

[cathmom]

The Simple Dollar blog reviewed this book (The New Global Student: Skip the SAT, Save Thousands on Tuition, and Get a Truly International Education by Maya Frost) so I got it from my library. So far it hasn't had much info and is written in a pretty annoying style, but I wanted to share two quotes with you all and see what you had to say.

 

The author is discussing AP classes and refers to Dr. Tony Wagner, who wrote a book called The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Don't Teach the New Survival Skills Our Children Need - And What We Can Do About It (I nominate that book for one of the longest titles EVER!). Here's the quote:

 

"Dr. Wagner's main concern is that the AP program is yet another example of focusing on content rather than critical skills. As he puts it, 'Which is more important: memorizing the parts of speech or writing an effective essay? We can't teach and test everything. In today's world, it's no longer how much you know that matters; it's what you do with what you know.' Exactly."

 

In the second quote, she is talking to Dr. Ralph Cline, director of the global school services for the IB (International Baccaulaureate) program. "Most of the the content we teach kids now will be irrelevant by the time they reach their ten-year high school reunion," says Dr. Cline, "so we focus on teaching them how to learn, which is a skill that will be valuable no matter what comes down the pike."

 

Both of these quotes strike me as being SERIOUSLY off. If schools can't take teach the parts of speech and how to write an essay in 12 years, then there's something wrong. And look at the flaw in the last sentence of the first quote: it's not how much you know but what you do with what you know. But if the schools have not taught anything, how can the student do anything with nothing?? Honestly it seems more logical to say that the best preparation is knowing a lot AND knowing what to do with all that you know!

 

And the second quote is just poppycock! Unless you're teaching today's computer applications, which will certainly be irrelevant in 10 years, I don't see how knowledge becomes irrelevant. Last week my dds did multiplication and division, analyzed literature,studied animals, learned Latin roots, etc. How will any of that be irrelevant in 10 years?

[KidsHappen]

My dd's elementary school principal quoted from "The Global Achievement Gap" at the beginning of the year and I wasn't much impressed with the quotes she used either, something to the effect that if a child doesn't pass the fifth grade that basically have no chance of graduating high school or succeeding in life. :glare:

[LibraryLover]

Sounds prety lame, imo.

 

As an aside, many of the AP tests do have writing components. So it's generally not possible to do well on them, or the newer writing portion of the SAT, if you cannot write or think clearly and thoughtfully. This is particularly true of the writing component of the AP History exams.

 

That said, a couple of tests shouldn't be the deciding factor wrt one's future.

Edited October 11, 2009 by LibraryLover

[catalinakel]

I'd like to add a bit to the conversation:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" Einstein

 

I believe that this is part of what these authors are getting at, although I have not read the books. By imagination I mean the ability to think outside of the box...to problem solve...to perceive things differently than they have 'always' been perceived.

 

Our world is changing quickly, and technology is making knowledge rapidly and easily accessable. We can look up parts of speech at the click of a mouse. We can look up how to spell things, and even how to use words very easily. So dictionary skills may not be as important as they used to be, and memorization of certain facts, as well. This did not used to be the case.

 

Now, I want my children to know, and know how to enjoy the classics, to be able to write well and persuasively, and to compute. I want them to understand history so that they will know from where we have come, and how we have got to where we are now. But many things need to change when it comes to educating our children. Technology must play a role. I do not believe that books will become obsolete, but I believe that the child who is able to use a computer for research will be years ahead of the child who does not. Encyclopedias (in book form) have become obsolete. Typewriters also, pretty much.

 

I think this way because my husband is a Phd candidate in Education and technology. He reads widely, and many are saying what those authors are saying. Things are changing. We need to learn how change the way we educate also.

[myfunnybunch]

As he puts it, 'Which is more important: memorizing the parts of speech or writing an effective essay? We can't teach and test everything. In today's world, it's no longer how much you know that matters; it's what you do with what you know.' Exactly."

 

This is a great example of an either-or fallacy. Either they memorize the parts of speech OR they write an effective essay. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. And while it is true that "It's what you do with what you know," you've got to know things before you can do something with them. I would contend that one writes a much more effective essay if one knows how to effectively use the tools, including the parts of speech, and one can more effectively use them if one really knows what they are and how they're used.

 

"Most of the the content we teach kids now will be irrelevant by the time they reach their ten-year high school reunion," says Dr. Cline, "so we focus on teaching them how to learn, which is a skill that will be valuable no matter what comes down the pike."

 

The idea that certain information may be irrelevant in ten years does not make the information useless now, nor is the process of learning that information a waste of time. How else do we teach children to learn?

 

Can you imagine? How would you teach children how to learn without teaching them content? A content-free education? Whee. Fun. "Hey, Billy, let's go to Learning Class!" Or "Hi Susie, what did you learn in school today?" "My teacher taught me to learn, Mommy." "Really? That's wonderful, darling?" Maybe not. I'd rather we teach children as much as we can now and trust that they're learning content and process.

 

However...if the book (and each quote) is addressing specifically the trend toward teaching to the standardized tests, then maybe it's not as stupid as it sounds. We want our children to learn more than can be measured by filling in little bubbles on a multiple-choice test. You can't test writing ability by giving a multiple-choice exam on the parts of speech.

 

Cat

[Scarlett]

A content-free education? Whee. Fun. "Hey, Billy, let's go to Learning Class!" Or "Hi Susie, what did you learn in school today?" "My teacher taught me to learn, Mommy." "Really? That's wonderful, darling?"

Cat

 

 

LOL Funny stuff.

[Sara R]

I'd like to add a bit to the conversation:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" Einstein

 

 

But imagination and knowledge are not opposites. Knowledge enhances imagination. Engineers can be creative in how they apply their specialized knowledge, if they studied hard to gain their specialty scientific knowledge in the first place.

 

A relevant essay from E. D. Hirsch: You Can Always Look It Up--Or Can You?

 

Imagine an expert and a novice looking up the entry "planets" on the internet and finding the following:

 

planet — any of the non-luminous bodies that revolve around the sun. The term planet is sometimes used to include the asteroids, but excludes the other members of the solar system, comets and meteoroids. By extension, any similar body discovered revolving around another star would be called a planet.

 

A well-informed person would learn a good deal from this entry if, for example, he was uncertain about whether asteroids, comets, and meteoroids should be called planets. A novice, even one who "thinks scientifically" would learn less. Since he wouldn't know what planets are, he probably wouldn't know what asteroids, comets, and meteoroids are. Even the simple phrase "revolving around another star" would be mystifying, since he probably wouldn't know that the sun is a star. Equally puzzling would be the phrase "other members of the solar system," since the term "solar system" already requires knowing what a planet is. An imaginative novice would no doubt make some fortunate guesses after a rather long time. But, looking things up turns out to have an element of Catch 22; you already need to know something about the subject to look it up effectively.

[EthiopianFood]

A relevant essay from E. D. Hirsch: You Can Always Look It Up--Or Can You?

 

This really gives me something to think about, maybe even defines a nagging feeling that I couldn't quite figure out. Thank you.

[nevergiveup]

But if the novice were taught how to learn, s/he would not stop at one source.

[stripe]

I read "The New Global Student" and didn't think it was the best book ever but I think it encourages a new way of looking at the teenaged years to avoid the feeling of being stuck in high school, waiting to graduate. An escape hatch. Not unlike the one that homeschoolers have developed by taking their kids out of school, but this one relies on other resources like community colleges, exchange programs, and so on, in other words other programs that provide different and more stimulating education. She has creative suggestions for international education and really encourages people to travel and learn other languages, and that I thought was a valuable suggestion.

[Jane in NC]

I heard the author promote her book on the radio program, On Point. As I recall, her children utilized Rotary Scholarships for travel/study opportunities (or am I misremembering?) Anyway, even if one is not going to throw in the towel on SATs and traditional college admissions, I do think that travel has great benefits and Rotary Scholarships (or similar programs from other civic organizations) are one good way to fund these adventures. One of my friends in undergrad spent a semester in then-Communist Poland which was funded by a local civic group promoting international understanding. They did not have a program to fund students--he just approached them and told them why they should fund him. And they did!

[Nicole M]

I read "The New Global Student" and didn't think it was the best book ever but I think it encourages a new way of looking at the teenaged years to avoid the feeling of being stuck in high school, waiting to graduate. An escape hatch. Not unlike the one that homeschoolers have developed by taking their kids out of school, but this one relies on other resources like community colleges, exchange programs, and so on, in other words other programs that provide different and more stimulating education. She has creative suggestions for international education and really encourages people to travel and learn other languages, and that I thought was a valuable suggestion.

 

Interesting. I have not read this book, but it sounds like she has some neat ideas, but that they are not backed up with a solid educational philosophy. Or, solid in my book.

 

I agree with the others that the whole learning to learn idea is silly. I think there are ideas or values out there that catch fire, that become common or popular, but that folks don't really think about. "Critical thinking" comes to mind. "Diversity" seems to be losing its meaning. "Sustainability" also. "Socialization" is another one -- words that people throw out, accept, but that don't hold real value.

 

I probably would have given up on that book when I'd gotten to the passages quoted. It's too bad when a good idea (thinking outside the educational box) is not well thought out. I suspect that the idea of learning to learn is so prevalent now, that it was used to sell the idea to readers who simply accept it. Authors tend to like to actually sell their books.

[Sara R]

But if the novice were taught how to learn, s/he would not stop at one source.

 

How would that second source help? If the second source was written on the same level as the first source, it might not provide much more information that the novice can access. Furthermore, if students don't experience success, it's easy to get discouraged. If the student doesn't grasp the information at first or second attempt, they will probably just consider themselves dumb. For adults, real life interferes.

[Jane in NC]

I commented on the book itself but not on the quotes the OP mentioned. So I'll return to those.

 

Looking at the quotes, I do see them as similar to traditional arguments for a liberal art education. Bear in mind an incident from the not so distant past, that of the rise of computers. Computer Science degrees did not really exist in the '70's, but companies like IBM had to hire people to work on computer systems. They hired liberal arts graduates under the assumption that these were people who could think.

 

Personally I see a problem with the current high school educational system that is indeed driven by test outcomes: SAT scores, AP scores or state "end of grade" tests. Those of you who have taught in classrooms will all relate to the frustrations of those tangential discussions in which we try to help the students draw larger connections. If the material is not going to be on the test, so many students completely tune out. If it is not on the test, it is of no value to them. What a shame! I just hate seeing life reduced to The Test. Or The Paycheck. If material does not have a "real world" application (whatever that means), it is not valuable in some people's eyes.

 

The other thing is that there is no one educational road for every student. If the author is presenting alternative models, that is a good thing--but not necessarily for everyone.

 

Jane

[Sara R]

I haven't read it, but I have encountered those ideas a lot. E. D. Hirsch is one who counters these ideas. That's the idea behind the Core Knowledge series: students need background knowledge.

 

I just read about a book that would counter the "learning how to learn" ideas: Why Students Don't Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions about How the Mind Works and What it Means for the Classroom by Daniel T. Willingham. Sounds like an intriguing book.

[dangermom]

This is a book I've been wanting to read. I was an exchange student myself and it certainly did play a huge part in my education and growing up. I'll still read it, but I would agree that the quotes above are nonsense. You can't learn how to learn without content. I would argue that a classical education is, in fact, actually doing what this slogan advocates--that's what the trivium does, only it can't be done without a lot of grist for the mill.

 

I read a good article on just this idea the other day, and now I can't find it! Argh!

[stripe]

Didn't Dorothy Sayers promote learning how to learn / think as the number one goal of education? Isn't this what shaped the WTM itself?

 

Also in the book she says the IB is the cool older sister of the AP (or something like that) because the AP is a victim of its own success -- so many people took AP classes that colleges started to eliminate college credit for high school classes, and it's all about the scores and cramming material for one exam, whereas the IB is still respected and promotes a broader idea of what education is. As a person who took many AP classes, I see where she's going with her criticism of the AP program.

[nevergiveup]

"How would that second source help? If the second source was written on the same level as the first source, it might not provide much more information that the novice can access."

 

Of course this is true, but knowing oneself and knowing how to access different sources of information would be key for anyone trying to learn about anything. For example, I wanted to know how to make a webpage. I had absolutely 0 knowledge of how to go about doing this. The first book I picked up was written for computer geeks and was way over my level of competence. Several books and websites later, I found some that worked for me and I taught myself how to do it. I really don't think that a lot of kids know how to learn--they definitely don't if they give up after one or two attempts.

[LibraryLover]

I read "The New Global Student" and didn't think it was the best book ever but I think it encourages a new way of looking at the teenaged years to avoid the feeling of being stuck in high school, waiting to graduate. An escape hatch. Not unlike the one that homeschoolers have developed by taking their kids out of school, but this one relies on other resources like community colleges, exchange programs, and so on, in other words other programs that provide different and more stimulating education. She has creative suggestions for international education and really encourages people to travel and learn other languages, and that I thought was a valuable suggestion.

 

 

I agree with this! There is no one way.

[usetoschool]

I haven't read it, but I have encountered those ideas a lot. E. D. Hirsch is one who counters these ideas. That's the idea behind the Core Knowledge series: students need background knowledge.

 

I just read about a book that would counter the "learning how to learn" ideas: Why Students Don't Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions about How the Mind Works and What it Means for the Classroom by Daniel T. Willingham. Sounds like an intriguing book.

 

 

I have read the Willingham book and love it. I am also a big fan of Core Knowledge and there is a battle going on right now, that is covered heavily by the Core Knolwedge people, between content and 21st century skills. There is a lot of good information about it on the Core Knowledge blog if people are interested in reading up.

 

I haven't read the book the OP referred to but it seems like a lot of the ideas in the book could be covered by what SWB refers to as a gap year, which was discussed heavily here a few months ago. It is also my understanding from some research I did a few years ago that the IB program is really not that great - don't recall why, just heard about it, sounded good, did some research and was not impressed.

[nmoira]

 

How would that second source help? If the second source was written on the same level as the first source, it might not provide much more information that the novice can access. Furthermore, if students don't experience success, it's easy to get discouraged. If the student doesn't grasp the information at first or second attempt, they will probably just consider themselves dumb. For adults, real life interferes.

We cannot possibly prepare our children such that they have a base level of knowledge of everything. I'd argue that a child who gives up so quickly would be one who had been ill served during their education; if the second source doesn't help, the child should recognize they need a more general overview and know what options are available. If anything, there is an argument here for doing away with grades and redefining "success" in a classroom context, to encourage inquisitiveness rather than humoring it (at best) or placing restrictions on it (in an effort to move on).

[JennifersLost]

I think one thing that gets lost in our thinking about school and college/university is that the makers of the SAT are running a business. And all the colleges and universities are businesses, as well. Some people get so hung up in the "idea" of it all, that they miss that point.

 

I don't think the SAT or any one educational path should define education. Nor should it define a child. I think we are ending up with a nation of kids who are very, very prepared to TAKE TESTS....but not necessarily anything else.

 

I've had to really change my thinking about school because I have a child who has decided not to go the college route (for now). I believe that my solid, classical WTM inspired teaching has helped make him who he is - but he has learned everything about the subject he's pursuing (computer programming) from books and from chatting with my husband, and other people online.

 

When he looks at computer programming majors/courses at colleges and universities, he just laughs. He's already learned half of it, and a big chunk of the rest is obsolete. Why would he go in debt $40,000 - $100,000 or more to get a piece of paper telling him he knows what he already knows?

 

I think the real crux of the matter is that we're building up a global glut of university educated white collar wanna-be workers. It seems to me that's going to mean a depression in real wages for those white-collar jobs. I'm not sure whether all our kids are going to get the "worth" out of those expensive educations.

[LibraryLover]

But imagination and knowledge are not opposites. Knowledge enhances imagination. Engineers can be creative in how they apply their specialized knowledge, if they studied hard to gain their specialty scientific knowledge in the first place.

 

A relevant essay from E. D. Hirsch: You Can Always Look It Up--Or Can You?

 

 

This essay has always been a favorite of mine. I simply don't know any really bright people who aren't also creative & imaginative thinkers. In fact, engineers and scientists are some of the most creative people I know. Further, they tend to be outrageously funny and witty. Not clowns, not rude, but very wry and on -the -mark.

[jeri]

but what struck me, really, was the author's emphasis on living outside the box. She (and her families) took real risks with their dds' education. But it sounds like they put a lot into getting them a good early education. What I mean is that whatever their stance on education, it doesn't sound like any of their dds were education slackards.

 

I, too, was an exchange student way back in '81-'82, and while I can't point to a specific change in what I pursued for college, it is something that had a profound effect in the way I view education and the world. I have literally traveled to dozens of countries, both personally and professionally, we have adopted children from Ethiopia and Ukraine, and we are currently living in Germany. None of this would have happened had I not been an exchange student. But way back then this *was* living out of the box.

 

jeri

[Sara R]

"How would that second source help? If the second source was written on the same level as the first source, it might not provide much more information that the novice can access."

 

Of course this is true, but knowing oneself and knowing how to access different sources of information would be key for anyone trying to learn about anything. For example, I wanted to know how to make a webpage. I had absolutely 0 knowledge of how to go about doing this. The first book I picked up was written for computer geeks and was way over my level of competence. Several books and websites later, I found some that worked for me and I taught myself how to do it. I really don't think that a lot of kids know how to learn--they definitely don't if they give up after one or two attempts.

 

Maybe we're talking past each other. Of course you aren't going to learn everything you ever need to know in school, and everyone needs to learn to research new areas of interests. But many ed school types use this argument to say that schools don't need to teach general knowledge content areas. They do, and that knowledge enhances creativity.

[catalinakel]

But imagination and knowledge are not opposites. Knowledge enhances imagination. Engineers can be creative in how they apply their specialized knowledge, if they studied hard to gain their specialty scientific knowledge in the first place.

 

A relevant essay from E. D. Hirsch: You Can Always Look It Up--Or Can You?

 

Hi Sara. I don't want to debate this, but did want to point out that the Einstein quote does not put knowledge and imagination in opposition to each other. Imho, it emphasizes the idea that knowledge, apart from imagination, is not very valuable. And I agree, particularly when applied to today's student and our changing world. I believe in a core knowledge, liberal arts education, but I also believe that our children's ability to use that knowledge is key, and this does not come from simple memorization of facts. Amassing knowledge doesn't amount to a hill of beans(!) if a child cannot use that knowledge to make something of his life, his world. I have taken the

SAT, and the Praxis general knowledge test. Both I passed with flying colors. However, none of the information on these tests have added to my ability to live a full life, aside from perhaps the literary analysis.....

 

It is not necessary, imho, to contrast knowledge with imagination. I do believe, however, that both are necessary to a rich education, and imagination does not develop very well when one is completely absorbed in the pursuit of knowledge...Imagination requires down time, and open space...ymmv.:001_smile:

[catalinakel]

I think one thing that gets lost in our thinking about school and college/university is that the makers of the SAT are running a business. And all the colleges and universities are businesses, as well. Some people get so hung up in the "idea" of it all, that they miss that point.

 

I don't think the SAT or any one educational path should define education. Nor should it define a child. I think we are ending up with a nation of kids who are very, very prepared to TAKE TESTS....but not necessarily anything else.

 

I've had to really change my thinking about school because I have a child who has decided not to go the college route (for now). I believe that my solid, classical WTM inspired teaching has helped make him who he is - but he has learned everything about the subject he's pursuing (computer programming) from books and from chatting with my husband, and other people online.

 

When he looks at computer programming majors/courses at colleges and universities, he just laughs. He's already learned half of it, and a big chunk of the rest is obsolete. Why would he go in debt $40,000 - $100,000 or more to get a piece of paper telling him he knows what he already knows?

 

I think the real crux of the matter is that we're building up a global glut of university educated white collar wanna-be workers. It seems to me that's going to mean a depression in real wages for those white-collar jobs. I'm not sure whether all our kids are going to get the "worth" out of those expensive educations.

 

:iagree: and I believe that this is part of the point of the writer's of the articles mentioned by the op. Those who will thrive are going to be innovators and entrepreneurs...not academics. Nothing against academia....I myself have attended nine different colleges, and dh is studying for his Phd. It is just that things are changing.

[LibraryLover]

but what struck me, really, was the author's emphasis on living outside the box. She (and her families) took real risks with their dds' education. But it sounds like they put a lot into getting them a good early education. What I mean is that whatever their stance on education, it doesn't sound like any of their dds were education slackards.

 

I, too, was an exchange student way back in '81-'82, and while I can't point to a specific change in what I pursued for college, it is something that had a profound effect in the way I view education and the world. I have literally traveled to dozens of countries, both personally and professionally, we have adopted children from Ethiopia and Ukraine, and we are currently living in Germany. None of this would have happened had I not been an exchange student. But way back then this *was* living out of the box.

 

jeri

 

Travel offers amazing education and adventure. I would love to be able to travel more. I try to do what we can, as I think few experiences offer as much growth as travel outside one's comfort zone does.

[LibraryLover]

:iagree: and I believe that this is part of the point of the writer's of the articles mentioned by the op. Those who will thrive are going to be innovators and entrepreneurs...not academics. Nothing against academia....I myself have attended nine different colleges, and dh is studying for his Phd. It is just that things are changing.

 

 

'Academics' and innovation can, and most often does, go hand in hand. Of course, I am not sure how you are defining 'academics'.