quote of the day, sadly

[serene]

From one of our specialists (basically, counselors) to a student: "I
don't like education for education's sake."

Comments

[wordweaverlynn.livejournal.com]

I hope that's burnout talking, not a considered philosophy.

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

The gist of her little speech to the student was that one should not be in school for school's sake, one should have a job goal, or one is wasting one's time.

[leback.livejournal.com]

Eep. How is time spent doing what one wants to do *ever* wasted?

[nmc.livejournal.com]

*shrug*

I'd agree with the statement (and clarification) if it weren't so strongly and specifically stated. I certainly think people get more out of education if they have a goal. That goal doesn't necessarily have to be a job, though. It could just be "I want to learn more about fishies!"

There are an awful lot of people in colleges today who are in college with only vague reasons why they're there, and while I don't think this is without worth, it certainly takes a lot out of the educational experience (in my experience, in my opinion, etc.).

[dbubley.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately from a Financial Aid point of view it makes sense. We won't pay unless a student is making progress toward a goal, a certificate or a degree. It's always been the law for the 20+ years I've worked in Financial Aid, but as the resources dwindle, the regulations and rules increase. And each year the enforcement becomes more and more strict.

Ideally I'd spend my day in lovely surroundings learning. Just for the sake of learning. Only money is a problem. And I like the things, stuff, etc., that having money can get me. I probably like them, in total, at least as much as I like learning; maybe even more.

Professionally, as a Financial Aid counselor I, too, probably don't believe in learning just for the sake of learning, unless you're learning something that will help you pay your own way. It takes money out of the mouths of many who are hungry, even desperate, to learn something that will enable them to make their life a little more bearable. On a hierarchy of needs, learning just for the sake of learning is probably at the top of the pyramid, and therefore not affordable until all of the base needs below it have been met.

Any education is pretty high up on the hierarchy. Some people can't even make it up the ladder to a place where financial aid can be of assistance. The base needs must be met first. At the same time there is not enough financial aid to assist those who aspire to the peak of learning after a certain point. The air is thin and expensive at the top. It smells lovely to those who want to be there, but heavier, earth-scented air actually supports more life.

Who pays for those at the top of the pyramid, and who can afford it? I really don't have answers, but I know I don't believe in starting at the top when distributing limited resources, although I'd bet Barbara Bush would think differently on the subject. And her son, also.

[leback.livejournal.com]

There are lots of people doing *lots* of things without clear reasons for them. I think most experiences are better when one is really motivated, not just taking the easy (or default) route through life, but that doesn't seem to've been the thrust of this statement: it comes across to me as "School is only valuable as a means to an end; doing it because it's just what you enjoy is a waste." Which is silly. I don't regret the two years I spent in grad school doing things I loved, even though they weren't part of a career path for me. If one can combine a practical end with doing what one enjoys, all the better, but if it's one or the other, I think the "educational experience" is better when it's the latter.

[leback.livejournal.com]

I think you make a good point--when you're doing what you're doing on somebody else's nickel, if nothing else, you ought to have some regard for the reasons they're paying for you to do it.

OTOH, people who earn their own way through school (which is what I did when I was a grad student) are probably putting their earnings to a use that's more socially responsible than a lot of the other things people do with spare cash.

[nmc.livejournal.com]

I would argue fiercely in favor of my own view, at this point, if I wasn't pretty sure we agreed.

:)

However, in honor of my being bored and easily amused by myself, I shall take up space quoting you whilst responding with minimum verbiage, combined with excessive numbers of footnotes:

There are lots of people doing *lots* of things without clear reasons for them.

Yes. Bad.

I think most experiences are better when one is really motivated, not just taking the easy (or default) route through life,

Yes.[1]

but that doesn't seem to've been the thrust of this statement: it comes across to me as "School is only valuable as a means to an end; doing it because it's just what you enjoy is a waste." Which is silly.

Yes.[2][3]

If one can combine a practical end with doing what one enjoys, all the better, but if it's one or the other, I think the "educational experience" is better when it's the latter.

Yes.[4]

[1] Of course, sometimes the easy or default thing is what you actually want to do.
[2] But if it were rephrased "School is much more valuable as a means to an end", with a very open interpretation of "end," I'd be happy. The end could be getting a job, learning more about fishies (FISHIES!), a desire for more philosophically interesting pick-up lines, or making yourself happy.
[3] I've so got to start using "to've".
[4] It's good to be practical, but I'd be perfectly happy with just "intentional." Take the course because the fishies discussed are pretty, not because it's there. Or take a pre-req because you want to take a course that requires it. Have a point to it.[4]
[5] I'm OK with negative reasons, too, particularly since if I weren't, I'd be a hypocrite. "I took this course because I want to graduate, I need three more credits of natural sciences, and this course doesn't require a lab" is perfectly reasonable to me.

[firecat]

Make it "School for school's sake," and I would agree. There's more to education than that, though.

[clever-doberman.livejournal.com]

wow, did you know you were going to generate such a complex discussion with your brief quote?

I've often wondered if I could clone myself, what other career paths I might have taken. One path is to be a pharmacist. I really do like the science of medications, tho I'd have to buck up on my science. another path is as a math educator, doing research in how people learn math.

I love being a therapist, and I even love the specialty I've found myself in. and after several years of being underpaid and gaining my experience, paying my dues, I'm now paid a decent wage for the hard work I do.

NOW I want to think about whether I want to take a class to learn about Fishies, study Spanish, or music theory. I could do those things at a community college, in someone's kitchen, or at a University. who's to say which of those options would be the most expensive. would I be occupying a seat that would take away from someone else who needs or deserves to be there more than I do?

[vito-excalibur.livejournal.com]

Ant, grasshopper, etc.

[dbubley.livejournal.com]

One of the rasons I work at a University is because I LOVE being around the learning atmosphere. I take classes just to take classes. Sometimes it's a job benefit, and sometimes it is just my nickel. When I think of retiring, I think about the books I can read and the time I'll have to learn.

Even death I see as a learning experience. Learning is the meaning of life; not necessarily learning the answers, but learning the questions.

[dbubley.livejournal.com]

Maybe the main goal of school is to learn how to learn.

[dbubley.livejournal.com]

Hey, don't you know that as fat gitls we're ALWAYS occupying space, especially seats, that someone else needs or deserves more than we do. So you might as well get you some learning while you're there.

Seriously, though, space at a University is often limited nowadays, at least in California. Many of the CSU schools were not admitting second BA students, regardless of who paid for it. Some of the junior colleges also had no room. Private colleges are very expensive as a rule.

California has students from the east coast who come out here and pay non-resident fees at our public schools because it's still cheaper than their schools. CSU schools are cheaper than UC schools, but tuition is in the thousands now. 20 years ago SFSU was $185/semester. This year it's $1564. I think even the JCs are getting close to, if not in the hundreds.
Not too long before I came out here 20+ years ago California had the best public university system in the country and it was free.

[dbubley.livejournal.com]

Very true. Most learning doesn't happen in school, and not everyone who sucessfully does school really learns what they need to do life.

[dbubley.livejournal.com]

GIRLS, not gitls! Will I never learn!

[elissaann.livejournal.com]

Did zie go on to explain what zie meant by that?

I don't think I do either. I wouldn't walk into a random classroom and take a random class in a random subject. The very fact that I would choose my subject means that I'm not getting the education for its own sake.