Friday, November 30, 2007
Style Over Substance
Today I was thinking about education for a work I plan to do on it, specifically one of the main problems I see with it: an emphasis of style over substance. More specifically, we are replacing content with so-called skills. And then I ran across this article here on the requirements CBS has listed for a potential reporter on ecological issues. They say they want someone who is "wicked smart, funny, irreverent and hip, oozing enthusiasm and creative energy. This position requires strong people, reporting, story telling and writing skills. Managing tight deadlines should be second nature." Lots of skills listed here. But do they have to know anything? The ad says, "Knowledge of the enviro beat is a big plus, but not a requirement.” Please note that it says knowledge of the "beat," not of ecology or the environment or anything of the sort. Apparently, knowing about ecology is not at all necessary to cover it. And why not? After all, Lou Dobbs knows nothing about the economy, but he not only reports on it, but gives his ignorant opinions on it as well. Looks like we'll be getting the Lou Dobbs of the environment over at CBS soon. No wonder our schools don't teach anything if jobs like this don't require that anyone know anything.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
What they are describing is a marketing major. In addition to environmental issues, take a look at the people reporting stories in finance, real estate, investments, technology, science, etc. There is rarely anyone with expertise reporting behind the microphone.
Nice entry...and you are right. It doesn't matter what you know so long as it comes in a nice package and can sell well.
Dana
Principled Discovery
Schools don't teach anything because the "scholars" teaching their teachers and writing their textbooks base their theory of mind on the idea of content-independent psychological mechanisms as per the Standard Social Science model. Since content is (supposedly) irrelevant (or at least totally subjective, as in reader response theory), it becomes more important to teach kids how to learn, which in practice means getting them to use google to answer vague and shallow questions about things they are interested in.
The ultimate irony here is that many (constructivist) educational professionals will fight tooth and nail to protect the SSM because it puts such a high premium on learning, when in reality it is this model's banishment of "the content" to a black box that is the biggest obstacle to teachers being able to teach something instead of nothing.
Teachers don't know how to teach, students don't know how to learn, and more money is being spent on education today than ever before.
Amen, Lucky 13, amen.
Post a Comment