Why do we have elite learning institutions? Could this possibly be a huge mistake? Does it make sense to group the best and brightest together?
Some would say that it makes perfect sense. When you put all the best together, you can give them the best teachers and challenge them all at a higher level, raising the ceiling on what they can achieve. Perhaps another reason it makes sense is because the brightest will all challenge each other. When you put two smart people together, they'll have smart conversation, and explore new ideas - the interaction will be at a higher level because both of them are at a higher level. If you put a smart person with a dumb person, the smart person will be held back because the level of discourse will have to be at the lower person's level.
But maybe these arguments aren't really that good. Because if we put all the smartest together, and expose them all to the same teachers, we're creating a high-level group of people who all have the same ideas. If we diversify, putting some smart people here, and some there, and mixing them up, then we'll get a group of people who have very different ideas and ways of approaching the world. If we have many different approaches, then we're likely to find more and better solutions to more problems. Moreover, in our current society, we've bred our intellectuals from the same pools - and so while we do have a number of high-level institutions that would "mix it up" a bit more, the people teaching at those schools are more-or-less interchangeable. They've come from the same institutions and such, simply trading back and forth. Professors at Harvard went to Yale, and Yale professors to Harvard, and professors at both were classmates at Stanford, and so on. It seems to me that what we really have is a very large pool, instead of several different ones. Thus, the intellectuals of the next generation are getting the same training everywhere, and we've completely undercut any diversity of thought. And without diversity of thought, we'll only be able to pass on a limited way of thinking to the next generation, and so on and so forth. We'll become intellectually myopic and reach academic stagnation.
The second argument - that putting two smart people together leads to a higher level of discourse, also seems to be pretty weak. First of all, the challenge of explaining high-level thinking to lower-level individuals may lead to a better development of that thinking. When you have to explain the basics you come up with a stronger position than if you're dealing with standard assumptions. Lower-level individuals will likely need the basics explained, whereas higher-level individuals will likely gloss over standard assumptions, creating holes in the ultimate conclusions.
More importantly though, basic economic thought tells us that shrinking marginal returns are a reality. The lower-level individuals have more to gain from high-level thought than the high-level individuals do. Say you've got two somewhat hungry people. One is at a fullness of 10 and one is at a fullness of 3. There's only one piece of pizza. The person who is more hungry (the person at the lower fullness), is going to value that pizza more. It might move him to a fullness level of, say, 5 or 6. The person at level 10 isn't going to need the pizza as much, and would probably only move up a little on the fullness scale - say to 11. So basically, the pizza has more value to the lower-level person.
The same idea applies to the intellectual situation. A lower-level person has more to gain from education than a high-level person would gain from that same education.
So wouldn't we be better off as a society if we didn't separate out our high-level intellectuals? Aren't we really hurting ourselves by creating an elite group of people who all think the same things? Wouldn't it be better to have a large group of people who have diverse ideas? And is it better to have a handful of super-intellectuals while everyone else is left at a low level? Wouldn't we be better off if instead society had a sizeable group of some high-level individuals and lots of middle-to-high-level individuals?
Maybe we should rethink the way we do education. Of course, most of the high-level individuals at the premier schools will disagree with me. And they'll probably all respond exactly the same way.
Well, I'll be as high as that ivory tower that you're livin' in
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
First, the song-"Friends in Low Places".
Next, about your blog. I completely agree-my roommate today made a comment about how she went to Montessori school, in a context that made it seem like she had a better start to life or something because it was for people of "intelligence" and it really made me annoyed because I never went to preschool, and attended public schools all my life and I feel that I am a fairly intelligent individual, at least as smart as my roommate. I don't know if we really need to separate out the people of most intelligence from the people of lesser intelligence, because I think it does a lot of harm. It gives the "smart" people a sense of uniqueness and allows them to have a certain arrogance that makes them feel more entitled them "regular" people. I don't agree with this at all. However, this is not to say that people who are of a higher intelligence (which itself is debated as to what is true intelligence, so it is somewhat subjective) should not have some programs and incentives in schools. I was in a gifted and talented program in elementary school, and was in honors and ap classes in high school, and I feel that if we don't have things like these, programs and other classes, that push people of high intelligence or even just "average" intelligence to reach their abilities and move past them, it would have a detrimental effect on society. But for the most part I agree with what you said.
Matt,
I dont agree with you on this one. First of all, you are assuming that all the best, smartest students are going to these so called ""elite learning institutions". I do not doubt that you can get a great education, which may very well be homogenous, at Ivy League schools such as Harvard and Yale, but I do feel that many very smart people go to other non elite schools and are therefore not exposed strictly to that school of thought. Take any of my friends here at OSU as examples, granted they all are in the Honors program. My friend Jeremy Volts is quite possibly the smartest person I will ever meet, he has a full ride academic scholarship, and chose OSU over an Ivy league school because it was closer to home. I would venture to say that a large percentage of our nations brightest people in fact go to non "elite" schools around the country, enough to counter the stagnation you speak of. I do not doubt that it is going on, but it is really not as widespread as you are implying. I do also think that smart people benefit from being placed together, and apart from people of lesser cognitive capacity. For instance, I find that I learn much more, and am more challenged to do well when taking Honors classes. I have also taken non Honors classes and been bored out of my mind by how dumbed down they were. I must say that school elitism really irks me, because I feel that it is possible to get as good of an education at, for instance, a big 10 Unversity, as at an Ivy League school. The reason I would supply to support this is that, what you get out of your education is directly proportional to what you put into it as far as effort. Sure you may get a better Prof. at one place, but the material is the same, and you can acquire it on your own if need be. I could have applied to and gone to an Ivy League school, and I challenge you to find anyone who thinks I would not have excelled there, but I chose OSU for various reasons. As such, I am not being taught the same ideas as all those who are attending elite schools, and there are many people like me.
Nate - You're right on the money with your points. And frankly, I think you might undersell them. But the fact of the matter is, for all the amazingly intelligent people who don't go to Ivy League schools, there are just as many who do. And those Ivy League schools breed more Ivy Leaguers, and they're widely recognized as the best and brightest in our society. Even if they aren't. And that's probably the biggest problem - that these people who are in those stagnant pools are more likely to find high-level positions in society, while the truly independently brilliant are more likely to miss out on those opportunities. Doesn't it make you angry that your friend won't have the same opportunities as Ivy Leaguers?
And yes, taking high-level courses certainly helps high-level individuals. I've experienced that first hand too. But I've also learned a ton from being mixed in with others - we need the whole ball of wax.
Finally, when it comes to material, I think you're right that it's basically the same wherever you go. But I think that's part of the problem. Everyone goes into school and comes out as automatons, thinking exactly what their professors have taught them. And usually what their professors have taught them is what they were taught, and so on. And, scarier still is the fact that all of those professors are teaching what a few elite institutions have established as they right way of thinking.
But I do think you're right, that the problem hasn't gripped our whole country. However, I do really think that it's widespread - and it's affecting an important class of our society, a scary fact in itself.
Point taken.
What the hell are you people babbling about?
Oh wait. I've neither gone to an elite institution nor taken an honors program. Obviously I'm not qualified to comment on this exchange.
So this is what my parenting has produced. Yet another reason there should be licensing requirements for parenthood.
We're babbling about the state of higher education in America, and the dearth of thought-diversity which it entails. You don't think that's a worthy subject?
For what it's worth, this issue is at the center of a decades-long debate over tracking and magnet schools and whatnot. If you're interested enough in it, I'll bet you can find reams of literature and studies on it.
i agree with what you are saying to a degree matt, nate also makes several good points; however, there is a flaw in this that nate stared to hit right on the nose, and that is the state of education, and governments role in education with policies such as no child left behind and other similar state level legislature, under these policies the idea of grouping smart with smart and dense with dense is supported and encouraged because they say-- matter of frankly-- that the speed of the entire class must be set at the rate at which the least intelligent member of the class can progress; this encourages honors programs and ap programs and begins a separation between the different levels of thinking--and this separation just continues on--i think to look at the problem and try and change it you need to look at its root; also worth noting is the role that money plays in this whole thing, most people going to ivy league schools are not taking out $50,000 yearly loans, not saying all, just most, and well that tends to lead to narrower thought and increased feelings of elitism; ask most rich folk whether or not they consider themselfs equal as human beings with those that are poor as dirt, then ask their kids who drive beemers the same question, you probably know the answer that you will get in most cases, this has very little to do with education itself but is an excellent start at explaining the feelings of elitism mentioned in prior comments, and example is that of emilys roommate feeling like she has a head up on the rest of the students because she got a private early education, that was not free by any means, anyway that is just a tangent of the real debate presented here
(i am aware that this is one big run on sentence....)
Post a Comment