Is an Equal Society a Realistic Aspiration?

[SirRumpole]

Any government with any backbone should be pouring more resources into facilitating the progress of brighter students to achieve their goals in the sciences and mathematics essential for research. A high proportion of these are Asian students whose parents take the work ethic seriously and wiill scrimp and save to educate their children.

Are you assuming that 'gifted' students only exist in affluent suburbs ?

I agree that gifted students should get more resources, wherever they live.

 

[cynic]

So, your alternative is ?

... If the curriculum were remedied, then perhaps education might have something worthwhile to offer.

The dearth of basic literacy, numeracy and critical thinking is ample testimony to Australia's failure to efficiently educate its populace.

The education curriculum would need to undergo significant revision before seriously entertaining it as a productive solution.

I've taken the liberty of bolding certain words/phrases from my previous my post. Inventiveness, to my understanding, isn't actually taught. It's a skill that some people do acquire naturally. Others are able to learn how to emulate certain processes whilst at the same time lacking the true skills required for independent innovation.

With just a few basic revisions to the core curriculum, education could conceivably enhance the prospects for accommodation of the genii amongst us, however, I believe it would be a mistake to presume that education is a solution in and of itself.

 

[cynic]

Could you outline how you think this would actually work, cynic? Would those who choose to opt out be funded by the working taxpayers to enjoy such an existence? Or do you mean if they opt out, then they also opt out of any taxpayer funded income?

In effect I simply see this as a way of reallocating existing resources in a more efficient manner

Whilst there is a dearth of employment, some unfortunate people are going to need to avail themselves of welfare in order to survive. My preference is to see those with enthusiasm gainfully employed. Allowing those less motivated members of our society to languish on our welfare system may seem counterproductive, but such a scenario would be preferable to having indolent employees occupying roles that could otherwise be readily filled by the more motivated members of our society.

 

[SirRumpole]

Inventiveness, to my understanding, isn't actually taught. It's a skill that some people do acquire naturally. Others are able to learn how to emulate certain processes whilst at the same time lacking the true skills required for independent innovation.

Yes, I think you are right, inventiveness is innate, but without knowledge whether it be gained by independent observation or structured teaching, inventiveness cannot readily be applied. One thing I would like to see more of in schools is a study of how successful people think and operate, something that was never studied when I was at school.

With just a few basic revisions to the core curriculum, education could conceivably enhance the prospects for accommodation of the genii amongst us, however, I believe it would be a mistake to presume that education is a solution in and of itself.

I agree again. The economy must be set up to support the skills taught in schools, tafes or universities, or probably more appropriately, governments need to decide what sort of economy is best suited to our long term resources and needs and create the skills to support that economy.

 

[Julia]

Orwell's Animal Farm ended with the pigs and men in a kind of rapprochement and unable to distinguish between themselves. It started as a Utopian society but as usual .. "equal" means many different things to many different people.

George Orwell .... "I saw a little boy, perhaps ten years old, driving a huge carthorse along a narrow path, whipping it whenever it tried to turn. It struck me that if only such animals became aware of their strength we should have no power over them, and that men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat."

I believe Orwell is right ... So to answer your Q Julia ... NON !

Ah, TS, a beautiful illustration. My thanks to you.

On the contrary, my experience with contemporary education to date is that it conditions students to think in a very narrow and limited fashion.

Too often when discussing alternative viewpoints with others I've been beset with ridicule by teachers and students alike. If the curriculum were remedied, then perhaps education might have something worthwhile to offer.

The dearth of basic literacy, numeracy and critical thinking is ample testimony to Australia's failure to efficiently educate its populace.

The education curriculum would need to undergo significant revision before seriously entertaining it as a productive solution.

Agree. According to a program I heard just a few days ago about 'the leaps and bounds that Australia has made in education' many schools seem to have focused on what they deem imaginative stuff like no longer having students with chairs and desks, instead having couches, allowing students to come to class when they feel like it, choosing what they want to learn etc. The advocates for this, even in primary schools, seemed to believe it would develop initiative or something.

As long as Australia so lags in international comparisons on basic literacy and numeracy, I'd suggest a move back to getting the basics right first. Kids, especially of a primary school age, have less than fully developed brains. To expect them to have the understanding and maturity of making viable choices about what they learn is unrealistic.

It is a myth perpetuated by the do-gooders that equality can be foisted on us by governmenr edict. Another myth is that envisioned by Gonski that pouring more money into educating those with lower IQs and disabilities will somehow elevate them to equality in the market with more gifted students.

Any government with any backbone should be pouring more resources into facilitating the progress of brighter students to achieve their goals in the sciences and mathematics essential for research. A high proportion of these are Asian students whose parents take the work ethic seriously and wiill scrimp and save to educate their children.

Yes, but the Asian children come from an entirely different culture where education is highly valued, as is discipline and duty. Seems like the other end of the spectrum from Australia with its undemanding ethos.

In effect I simply see this as a way of reallocating existing resources in a more efficient manner

Whilst there is a dearth of employment, some unfortunate people are going to need to avail themselves of welfare in order to survive. My preference is to see those with enthusiasm gainfully employed. Allowing those less motivated members of our society to languish on our welfare system may seem counterproductive, but such a scenario would be preferable to having indolent employees occupying roles that could otherwise be readily filled by the more motivated members of our society.

Perhaps my powers of comprehension are lacking, cynic, but are you saying that yes, you think it's OK for a kid to choose not to engage in any requirement for either education or work, and still receive a taxpayer funded benefit?

Yes, I think you are right, inventiveness is innate, but without knowledge whether it be gained by independent observation or structured teaching, inventiveness cannot readily be applied. One thing I would like to see more of in schools is a study of how successful people think and operate, something that was never studied when I was at school.

Good idea, but as I say that, I think 'how much more can we expect the schools to impart to students'?
Already they are failing to achieve an adequate standard of basic literacy and numeracy. We want them to teach social skills, sex education, financial literacy and god knows what else. Where are the hours in the day and where are the teachers who have even a fraction of the skills required to impart such wisdom to children?

I'm going to disagree about inventiveness, or lateral thinking, being immovably innate. It's quite possible to encourage people to alter their thinking, to adopt the philosophy of having a go at something.
One of my employers a pretty long time ago said: "I believe you are capable of much more than you think.
Always have a go. If you fail you are not at the point of minus one. You are simply where you were before you tried. But you might be a whole step ahead."

That's the kind of thinking we should be encouraging, surely?
Instead, it seems to me that our entitled society has bred a philosophy of people regarding themselves as victims in too many instances. So much largesse has been poured forth from governments of both sides in bribery to buy votes that it has become an expectation, a right. And gradually this seems to have discouraged individual initiative, the motivation to take responsibility for our own outcomes.

On a tangent, about two thirds of the population is now obese or severely overweight. Many people are depressed, stressed, unhappy, apparently. Neither of these indicate a contented and productive society.

Something is imo very wrong with where we are as a society and the path we seem to be on.

As several people have suggested, there is a wide distrust of and disappointment in politicians. That they set such woeful examples is hardly encouraging to the rest of us.

Or am I being unnecessarily concerned, and all is fine?

 

[cynic]

Perhaps my powers of comprehension are lacking, cynic, but are you saying that yes, you think it's OK for a kid to choose not to engage in any requirement for either education or work, and still receive a taxpayer funded benefit?

Whilst there are insufficient employment vacancies to accommodate so terribly many able bodied and willing candidates for employment - YES!

If we were experiencing an abundance of employment then my stance on this issue would be quite different.

 

[Calliope]

Whilst there are insufficient employment vacancies to accommodate so terribly many able bodied and willing candidates for employment - YES!

If we were experiencing an abundance of employment then my stance on this issue would be quite different.

A gullible cynic! Now there's an oxymoron.

 

[cynic]

A gullible cynic! Now there's an oxymoron.

Thanks for that!

Just in case you are unaware, I've had a lot of past experience of being "between jobs" whilst mainstream society was gullibly believing a highly questionable single digit unemployment percentage. One glance at the lengthy queues inside the DSS office would have been enough to alert anyone with a modicum of intelligence to the fiction that was (and still is) being repeatedly foisted on our society.

 

[SirRumpole]

Good idea, but as I say that, I think 'how much more can we expect the schools to impart to students'?
Already they are failing to achieve an adequate standard of basic literacy and numeracy. We want them to teach social skills, sex education, financial literacy and god knows what else. Where are the hours in the day and where are the teachers who have even a fraction of the skills required to impart such wisdom to children?

True, but my recollections of history classes at school were that we studied ancient Greeks, Romans, Sumarians etc which had little relevance to our daily lives. We also studied the basic theory of economics, supply and demand, capital, profit and loss etc, but little about the underlying drivers of the economy , which is basically the psychology of the consumer and how the consumer's basic needs and wants are satisfied by the government and business sectors.

So I agree with @cynic that there is room for reworking of curriculums, cutting away some dead wood consisting of rote learning and replacing it with some critical analysis techniques and real life stories of success. Basic literacy and numeracy should, as you implied be the main focus in the early years of development and as the child's brain develops, the higher levels of critical thought can be introduced. You are obviously correct when you say that we need teachers capable of imparting this sort of ability. I'm sure such people exist, it's a matter of attracting them to the teaching profession by paying on merit not length of service.

Also may I thank you for this thread Julia. It's been very stimulating and has made people think about wider themes than basic politics. This thread deserves a long life.

 

[prawn_86]

So I agree with @cynic that there is room for reworking of curriculums, cutting away some dead wood consisting of rote learning and replacing it with some critical analysis techniques and real life stories of success. Basic literacy and numeracy should, as you implied be the main focus in the early years of development and as the child's brain develops, the higher levels of critical thought can be introduced. You are obviously correct when you say that we need teachers capable of imparting this sort of ability. I'm sure such people exist, it's a matter of attracting them to the teaching profession by paying on merit not length of service.

I haven't read this whole thread, but one thing that is noticeable here in the States is the lack of critical thinking and how defined/robotic the average American worker is. When you ask a question their standard answer is no, as opposed to i'm not sure let me find out.

I believe it is to do with their schooling and legal system. Schooling where standardized testing has removed all form of critical thinking, and legal system where nobody wants to take responsibility for fear of implications coming back on them if they are wrong. They would rather be unhelpful than potentially wrong, or do something that doesn't fit into their role

 

[Trentb]

I believe that our only chance to survive in the future is by having a vibrant R&D sector, and one that has a greater capacity to commercialise inventions and ideas than we currently have. The more people who have ideas, the better.

Then why are you so against the medical research fund? It's a step in the direction for this sector you dream about.

The potential billion dollars it could add would double the existing funding. This funding is accessible to fund ideas right around Australia. It's available to universities, research institutes, hospitals and scientific businesses.

There are far far more ideas than money to fund their development and research in Australia. Only a tiny percentage of research and development grant submissions get funded. This is not because most are bad rather it's due to severe limitations of funding available.

The R&D sector as Australia's future gets talked about a lot. It seems that as soon as any steps are made in that direction it gets attacked as a waste. Hand over the cash and you'll get the future you want. Don't and you won't.

There's all this talk of Education yet it's extremely difficult for a science graduate and harder for a science PhD graduate to find employment in their field. These are people who have done 4 or 8 years at university and want to work. The majority end up changing careers to a completely different field. This is not only a waste of education resources I ask: is this equitable?

It seems everyone loves the idea of more science and engineering degrees. Yet education is not the answer. Put much more money into funding those who have already passed through the education system. Otherwise the lineup at centrelink will be much larger, however, this new lineup will be extremely well educated.

 

[SirRumpole]

Then why are you so against the medical research fund? It's a step in the direction for this sector you dream about.

I'm not. I said previously that it should be funded fairly by an adjustment to the Medicare levy, and the funding should be made available now not in six years.

I wish people would actually read and absorb what I write before misinterpreting my comments.

 

[Julia]

There's all this talk of Education yet it's extremely difficult for a science graduate and harder for a science PhD graduate to find employment in their field. These are people who have done 4 or 8 years at university and want to work. The majority end up changing careers to a completely different field. This is not only a waste of education resources I ask: is this equitable?

So what's going wrong here? Are people engaging in degrees without properly researching the likely number of jobs in that field by the time they're graduated?

It seems everyone loves the idea of more science and engineering degrees. Yet education is not the answer. Put much more money into funding those who have already passed through the education system. Otherwise the lineup at centrelink will be much larger, however, this new lineup will be extremely well educated.

Are graduates prepared to accept - in the meantime - jobs that are less than those to which they aspire?
A young woman I know who has just completed her engineering degree applied for the job of her choice.
She didn't get it but was invited to apply for an admin position within the same company.
After she'd stopped ranting about sexism etc (privately, of course) she did apply for the admin job and starts in two weeks.

So, perhaps not what she'd hoped for, but nevertheless it's a job and an income, and she will be in an environment of her choice where there should be opportunities arising in the future.

 

[SirRumpole]

So what's going wrong here? Are people engaging in degrees without properly researching the likely number of jobs in that field by the time they're graduated?

I suggest that more people are going for the prestige of a uni degree (what degree doesn't matter as long as it interests them) thinking that a degree is a guarantee of a high paying job, and failing to realise that the market is saturated with people like themselves, whereas the ones earning the big money these days are the less prestigious but more in demand tradespeople like electricians, plumbers, car and truck mechanics, welders etc, ie those prepared to get their hands dirty instead of polishing their degrees.

 

[burglar]

... I wish people would actually read and absorb what I write before misinterpreting my comments.

I read what you wrote, and I knew what you meant! :