Standardized Education
There are many challenging aspects to standardized education. One thing I have come to realize is that it’s not just a matter of “setting the bar.”
While one might expect standardized education to only advance society, it affects each student differently. A seemingly “below-average student” (by some broad/comprehensive standardized measure) could actually just be too focused to perform well by the standard measure. Every student is unique. About half of all students are above average and half below, and some students are “outliers:” either scoring exceptionally low or very high.
We typically evaluate students by comprehensive tests. Teachers must devote time preparing the majority of students for the tests, so the advanced students are effectively wasting time while the others catch up. So, I think it’s impossible to only set a minimum standard for a single body of students and not inadvertently affect the high performers. This is why we have Advanced Placement and accelerated tracks for the students. Segmenting students by scores allows us to at least differentiate among 3 main groups: below-average, average, and above-average. Instructors can then be more efficient with respect to meeting the needs of each group.
Narrow versus Broad – Specialization and Standardization
Is focus bad? Consider the book Outliers by Malcom Gladwell.
Specialization is something I’ve noticed more and more from international students arriving at U.S. graduate schools. Some students, particularly some I’ve met from China, have discussed considerable specialization at the high school level. The U.S. seems to be (slowly) heading in that direction. While I have noticed we have fewer students (compared to years past) choosing “undecided engineering” upon enrollment, even the choice of “electrical engineering” is very broad. (I’ve put together lists from several freshman recruiting sessions at Georgia Tech) I know Computer Engineering graduates at Tech who in graduate school finally specialize in bioinformatics, business consulting, etc. An American student could never “catch up” to the expertise of the highly specialized student of the same age and in the same field.
So now we need standards for all the specialties. For instance, we now have computer engineering distinct from electrical engineering, and we have environmental engineering distinct from civil engineering. Specialization is sometimes at odds with standardization.
Of course, we need “Jacks-of-all-trades” just as we need specialists. Maybe we do in fact have a balance in the U.S., but standardization is likely upsetting that balance. For instance, a major funding agency in the U.S. distinguishes among grant recipients on factors such as outreach or “broader impacts,” which I think are good in principle, but I’ve heard several people say these are weighted too much and dilute the efforts to achieve breakthroughs.
Forcing Progress – Does it Work?
We need more (good) teachers. With one professor facing 200 students, each student is presented with the same information as many others. Two hundred dialogues just aren’t feasible. So, we have instruction by dictation. It’s dilution from the start. The instructor tailors his/her material to the audience, but not to the individual. The diffusion of information in this manner suggests partial capture by each unique student. Without conversing with students, one cannot achieve the full transfer of the information.
Another perspective is that we may need fewer students. Should we really push all high school students to university? In many ways, the average is stationary: there will always be a spread of students. The best today may seem better than yesterday, but could it be an illusion based upon the changing environment? Our species hasn’t changed dramatically, aptitudes probably haven’t changed, rather the resources have changed. When someone raises the standards, teachers and students must find ways to meet the standards (in some cases even forging student test answers to improve scores (in Atlanta, GA)). Sure the students and teachers will adapt, but how? Does a below-average student adapt in a way we can predict?
I think the result of this musing is that standards deal with averages, and we must account for that where necessary in unique situations. It seems a student desiring to stand out should exert only sufficient comprehensive effort to exceed the standards, but meanwhile he/she should devote the majority of effort toward a single interesting subject.
A Perspective
Tech has given me and my fellow students innumerable opportunities to lead extracurricular programs cultivating balanced/well-rounded graduates. However, the required bulk of the college experience takes a sort of “cookie-cutter” approach and can easily leave little time for the other development.
Indeed there is a bit of a disconnect between what is taught and assessed, and what is expected of U.S. engineering graduates. A standardized undergraduate “McEducation” (as one professor put it) spoon-fed much of the material to me in a somewhat stifling way. Should we mass-produce graduates? Should we drive all high school graduates to universities? The classes provided good challenges and problems, and the professors prepared me to solve them. However, I had almost forgotten the magic of actually finding the problems and discussing their relevance and significance – the thrill of blazing a path. That was the void for which I turned to academic research.
Outlook
I believe in the mantra “it takes all kinds.”
I also see a fundamental mixing and homogenization of things in our world. Despite a round Earth, our world is becoming “flat.” The separation between people, cities, planets, and nearly anything is virtually decreasing. Air travel moved people among cities within the space of a day. Electronic communication has enabled practically instantaneous communication among a majority of the population. I’m not talking about broadband in a majority of homes (not true), but rather TV, phone, and radio. Cultural divides are changing, and slang and dialect seem to be mixing.
We are now bombarded by so much diffuse information: tweets, fast-paced TV ads, websites featuring 10 different types of content on a single page, etc. How will the future generation of students focus? I think this is something we must address, and naturally, we will strive to make the diffusion in the world efficient, manageable, and convenient. Will this be the task of tomorrow’s students?
Standardization must diversify into specializations… multiple standards. Indeed this is already happening.
A Challenge to Instructors
I challenge professors to do as Feynman, E.F. Taylor (Oersted winner, 1998), and others have done: introduce the modern concepts early and without obsolete baggage. Excite the students with the newest things, but teach them the time-invariant tools of the trade which allow them to efficiently solve problems both old and new. Show students on the first day of class the latest technology, and “put the cart before the horse” a bit to lead them backwards through the syllabus toward the fundamentals they intuitively know.
Links
Should Everyone Go to College? (Added 2009-09-18. I glad to see some agreement on this point.)
The Infinity Project (open curriculum for science and engineering)