|
Post by superfelix on Mar 6, 2010 9:19:13 GMT -5
Okay, just to make things clear: I think Dan does kind of funny videos. But sometimes his ideas and his perception of the world is way off. The most recent example of this is the open letter to educators. The man famous for his pro science and education videos, Thunderf00t, prove Dan wrong on the core points of open letter video. Thunderf00ts video can be seen here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aikjdi3psUE&channel=Thunderf00tWhat do you think? Is dropping out and using the internetz still a good idea?
|
|
Soup629
Meteorite
Life is never easy for those who dream.
Posts: 19
|
Post by Soup629 on Mar 6, 2010 9:58:24 GMT -5
I enjoy both TF and Dan Brown (obviously) and I believe both user's went very overboard with alot of what they did.
Dan: You shouldn't have dropped school, yes it's not very personal and all, but its there to teach you skills. And the classes get smaller each year as you trickle down to what you really want to go into job-wise. Yes, education does need to change but I think that it was a bit much.
TF: You were accusing him of being Glenn Beck like, but then use Rush Limbaugh tactics and make him sound ridiculous by slow-mo and going way off the point, just to make the audience feel angry at him because he sounds stupid.Plus you missed the GENERAL point of Dan's entire video. That education needs to change and become A) more technology biased, and B) teach us more that facts, teach us how to live our lives successfully as a good honest person. You created an argument that didn't exist by saying he wanted to get rid of education. Dan Brown is more than just a drop out, he is a human, with ideas and feelings and the ability to change things. By putting at the bottom, "from a dropout video" you make me question what you really think about people that aren't you. Creationist, yes, it's part of a religion, thats fine, but a drop out does not make him incapable of ideas. Basically, you went really overboard.
This entire thing really ticked me off. Thunderf00t took everything in a personal way, very disappointed in him. He should stick to religion, and stay away from the idea's of new.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2010 10:19:11 GMT -5
Well, TF didn't prove Dan wrong. Maybe I am too pedantic and obsessed with mathematics but to prove/disprove something there have to be solid facts involved.
However, I'm dead set on going to university and I am as sure as anyone can be that I will not drop out. Dan first struck me as having the same type of ethic but starting this whole tribal thing has changed him. And no, I'm not criticizing. I admire that he is dedicated enough to do something as major as dropping out of education to keep this running.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 6, 2010 10:55:02 GMT -5
I'll agree with aajames here. Though TF did give a decent argument against some of the things Dan said, there was no proof. After all, in Dan's case college was probably a really poor choice, and yeah some of the things he said were too broad, and he addressed these things in the following video that he made. But to prove something or somebody wrong you need solid premises, something that TF did not have. Education is far more than schooling can teach you, and for Dan and others education is not something found in a structured school system like college, for many people (and I would include TF, myself, and many people I know in this category) college is important so that they can learn how to apply the facts they find, along with a certain set of life skills.
For being pro-education, TF seems to have forgotten the purpose of education, which I believe is to teach people how to apply skills and knowledge to every day life.
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on Mar 6, 2010 11:08:04 GMT -5
What do you think? Is dropping out and using the internetz still a good idea? Well, no. I never thought that was a good idea, and I never thought Dan was advocating that idea. The point of Dan's video was not that Dan was wrong or right or a dropout or had a PhD or what have you. It was to get people talking about education. Success.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Mar 6, 2010 12:31:12 GMT -5
I think what Thunderf00t missed was that Dan was pointing towards the fact that the face of education is changing because the world around it is changing.
|
|
|
Post by Ricky on Mar 6, 2010 12:45:08 GMT -5
I think that Thunderf00t isn't taking something into consideration... Dan wasn't trying to get a physics degree but something related to media (I'm not sure what it was exactly). The point is that what he was studying was meant to give him what he had already achieved. Besides He has said over and over again that what he did (dropping out) does not apply to everyone, and his was a special case.
|
|
|
Post by Dimstow on Mar 6, 2010 16:57:52 GMT -5
I want to state that first of all, as a student who believes firmly in education but one who didn't enter a university after my public schooling was finished, what he said offended me, treating someone (and calling someone) like a moron because they don't have a diploma is absolute Bullocks.
I think it's important to note that throughout TF's video the word Dropout is used not only as a title but as an insult, an insult which I think is both unjust and unnecessary.
But the argument isn't whether I'm for or against Dan's decision , the real debate is centered around universities and whether they fulfill the same role in our world today as they did during their establishment. Not badmouthing Science, Knowledge, or education I think that the agreement between TF and Dan isn't just for them, it's a universal agreement, I think we can all standby the statement that to improve our world it is essential for everyone to have access to higher education. But what I, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way, wish I could say personally to TF is this; In most situations, the things limiting the Furthering of education are the Universities themselves. The ideal that to recieve knowledge we have to pay outragious wages, we have to travel and devote YEARS of our lives to subjects that don't effect our eventual career (and lives) is an outdated one. Not that it hasn't been successful obviously some of our greatest minds have come from the halls of our universities but think of how many minds have never had the chance! Think of the Ethiopian child who was born with an IQ equal to Einstein who's greatest claim to fame is that we figured out how to position the hay on the roof so that he could sleep without being wet.
The fact is that the world majority will never have access to universities if they continue to be run the way they are, for those,like myself, who WANT to further their knowledge but simply can't stomach the idea of coming away from them 5 years later, with a piece of paper, 50k forth of debt and praying for a career.
But the internet is allowing for that to change, wherein universities used to be culmination of human knowledge and the location where the knowledge was shared, that is slowly migrating, I think that eventually the Internet will allow EVERYONE to be connected, to share knowledge, and in that world universities truly won't be needed.
And for the record, rather than googling how to do physics and telling your potential employer that that's how your going to work for them, and employer should be willing and able to test their applicant on their knowledge, and higher the person who has more knowledge and can apply it most efficiently rather than assuming that a deans signature and a monthly student loan payment means they're more qualified.
|
|
|
Post by noobsensei on Mar 6, 2010 18:51:07 GMT -5
Thunderf00t is absolutely right. While universities may change in the future, they aren't going to become obsolete anytime soon. Dan's assertion that "facts are free" and therefore we don't need universities anymore is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Universities are NOT just brick-and-mortar versions of Wikipedia. After viewing Dan's video a few times, I came to the conclusion that it's mostly just a rationalization for his dropping out of school, rather than a coherent argument against the way universities operate. He never even attempted to explain how he thinks universities need to change, or what he thinks the future of education looks like. I don't know the answers to those questions either, but I'm pretty sure the future of education is NOT surfing Wikipedia or listening to TEDTalks on whatever topic interests you.
|
|
|
Post by noobsensei on Mar 6, 2010 18:55:59 GMT -5
And for the record, rather than googling how to do physics and telling your potential employer that that's how your going to work for them, and employer should be willing and able to test their applicant on their knowledge, and higher the person who has more knowledge and can apply it most efficiently rather than assuming that a deans signature and a monthly student loan payment means they're more qualified. Most employers don't have the time or the money to test every applicant like that. They assume that a college degree in physics is evidence that you know something about physics...and that assumption is usually justified.
|
|
|
Post by Dimstow on Mar 6, 2010 19:56:06 GMT -5
Thunderf00t is absolutely right. While universities may change in the future, they aren't going to become obsolete anytime soon. Dan's assertion that "facts are free" and therefore we don't need universities anymore is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Universities are NOT just brick-and-mortar versions of Wikipedia. After viewing Dan's video a few times, I came to the conclusion that it's mostly just a rationalization for his dropping out of school, rather than a coherent argument against the way universities operate. He never even attempted to explain how he thinks universities need to change, or what he thinks the future of education looks like. I don't know the answers to those questions either, but I'm pretty sure the future of education is NOT surfing Wikipedia or listening to TEDTalks on whatever topic interests you. I will agree with you on 1 thing, Universities are NOT just brick-and mortar versions of Wikipedia. If they we're they'd be a hell of a lot more effective. Frankly Universities in the present-day are a business, you pay a lump sum of cash, wait through their services, and at the end of the transaction you get a product. (Degree) Dan's video stated that all universities class pertains is a ridiculously large group of students who set, listen and take notes on a subject, taught by a single man, and you write down the fact about the subject. No personal interaction, student to student information passing is frowned upon(!), and frankly what you learning is exactly what was stated in the original letter to educators Facts Would you be better off learning about the same subject form Wikipedia? No! Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and, though I love/use the site personally, it's not a credible source for information and doesn't have the knowledge base needed to learn subjects in full. But that does not mean the information, by credited sources, is not on the internet and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean it never will. If someone could make a website with the same overall subject knowledge that Wikipedia has, made by professionals in the fields for which they pertain, and allow ANYONE to access it, then universities would be ABSOLUTELY pointless. And just as a side note @noodsensai Your right, most employers don't have the time or resources to test each of their applicants, but Universities are also not TEACHING the students the subject they are studying in full, the students are doing nothing more than studying the same scibbles, passing a test with them, and showing their $60,000 piece of paper to an employer, to get employs that actually KNOW about the fields in which they works they're going to HAVE to start testing their applicants, a piece of paper is simply not enough proof anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 6, 2010 20:34:42 GMT -5
Something I'd like to point out about universities, while some classes are basically fact classes, I find that most of my classes are actually more so an application process, and I in fact learn very few plain facts. For example, of the 5 classes I am currently taking, only one is based on the knowledge of facts. For all of the other classes, I am given all the facts I need to take the test, (open book, open notes, nearly open definitions, all the equations I could ever dream of) and I have to use these facts which I'm given freely to apply to the problem at hand.
I have a feeling that the class I am in is teaching me how to do this because when it comes time for my career after college, the knowledge of applying is going to be more important to me than the facts that I can easily look up, or the equations I can find easily.
Granted, I know not all universities are like that, and certainly many of the classes in the early levels (100, 200, and sometimes even 300 level courses) are simply a large lecture room where you copy down facts. But that doesn't mean that all universities are about is teaching facts.
|
|
Philosoraptor
Moon
dangling prepositions is something up with which I shall not put
Posts: 145
|
Post by Philosoraptor on Mar 6, 2010 21:36:08 GMT -5
Hm. Thunderf00t has a point. But he comes off as really overly abusive and arrogant in this video. This is actually one of the only Thunderf00t videos I don't like.
|
|
|
Post by noobsensei on Mar 7, 2010 0:18:12 GMT -5
I will agree with you on 1 thing, Universities are NOT just brick-and mortar versions of Wikipedia. If they we're they'd be a hell of a lot more effective. No they wouldn't. First of all, most people don't learn well by staring at text on a screen...especially if the subject isn't particularly interesting to them. And before you say that they picked the wrong field if they aren't interested in it, consider that EVERY field has some boring topics. I find business fascinating and I'm very glad to be getting my MBA...but there are certain business-related topics (e.g. cost accounting) that I find mind-numbingly boring. That doesn't mean that I don't need to know them though. If I had to learn cost accounting by staring at text on a screen instead of taking a class on it, there is simply no way I'd ever get through it. Second of all, there's the issue of motivation in general. People are more motivated when they're interacting with actual human beings. My peers keep me motivated; we study together, we hang out together, and we compete against one another. Those things are simply not possible (at least not as much) if you're trying to get an education from reading Wikipedia. Frankly Universities in the present-day are a business, you pay a lump sum of cash, wait through their services, and at the end of the transaction you get a product. (Degree) You have to put in work of your own to learn the material. While there are some diploma mills out there, they aren't accredited. Your theory that a university education is nothing more than paying money for a degree is ridiculous. REAL universities aren't going to give you a degree if you didn't do any work and don't know any of the material, even if you pay your tuition every semester. Dan's video stated that all universities class pertains is a ridiculously large group of students who set, listen and take notes on a subject, taught by a single man, and you write down the fact about the subject. No personal interaction, student to student information passing is frowned upon(!), and frankly what you learning is exactly what was stated in the original letter to educators That is not what a university is. Ironically, that is exactly what the "Wikipedia Education" is, which you claim would be better: A collection of facts with no personal interaction with anyone. Would you be better off learning about the same subject form Wikipedia? No! Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and, though I love/use the site personally, it's not a credible source for information and doesn't have the knowledge base needed to learn subjects in full. But that does not mean the information, by credited sources, is not on the internet and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean it never will. That misses the point entirely. The problem with a Wikipedia Education (or other type of non-university online arrangement) has nothing to do with accuracy...it's probably about as accurate as a textbook or college professor. It has to do with lack of motivation, lack of human interaction, and lack of verifying that you actually know the material you claim to know. If someone could make a website with the same overall subject knowledge that Wikipedia has, made by professionals in the fields for which they pertain, and allow ANYONE to access it, then universities would be ABSOLUTELY pointless. Those sort of websites already exist. There are thousands of websites made by professionals in whatever field you want to study. They are simply not the same as a college education. Benefits of a college education that cannot be acquired from free online sources: 1. Human interaction with like-minded peers. 2. Human interaction with a professor instead of text on a screen. 3. The ability to ask questions and participate in class discussions, and get responses in real time. 4. The ability to participate in professional organizations, special interest clubs, and organizations. 5. Being able to network and talk with career recruiters on your campus. 6. Having a reputable institution vouch for your knowledge when you are finished with your education. Your right, most employers don't have the time or resources to test each of their applicants, but Universities are also not TEACHING the students the subject they are studying in full, the students are doing nothing more than studying the same scibbles, passing a test with them, and showing their $60,000 piece of paper to an employer, to get employs that actually KNOW about the fields in which they works they're going to HAVE to start testing their applicants, a piece of paper is simply not enough proof anymore. Let's stop and think about what a college degree is, and why employers consider them worthwhile. Every employer wants someone who knows the material necessary for the job, and every applicant is going to tell the employer how wonderful he is. Unfortunately, most employers don't have the time or money to test each applicant. So what do they do? They rely on a third party to test the applicants: Universities. If someone has a bachelor's degree, it means that a reputable source is willing to vouch for them and tell the world that this person knows the material necessary for the job.
|
|
|
Post by Dimstow on Mar 7, 2010 2:03:04 GMT -5
I actually like the term 'Wikipedia Education' it's a lot catchier than 'Free online sources that were designed and build by professionals in a variety of fields Education' Benefits of a college education that cannot be acquired from free online sources: 1. Human interaction with like-minded peers. 2. Human interaction with a professor instead of text on a screen. 3. The ability to ask questions and participate in class discussions, and get responses in real time. 4. The ability to participate in professional organizations, special interest clubs, and organizations. 5. Being able to network and talk with career recruiters on your campus. 6. Having a reputable institution vouch for your knowledge when you are finished with your education. Let's assume, and I think this is a pretty fair assumption, that this 'Wikipedia Education' is established in the current version of the Internet. The same internet that is allowing everyone on these forums to communicate to each other, to share ideas, to debate about our personal views about not only Thunderf00t and Dan Brown but the very foundation of the education system that gives us the knowledge to be ABLE to communicate these views. The internet is an amazing place, eh? What I'm getting at is that the Wikipedia-Education that I proposed isn't just a site where you type in 'Ship building carpentry' and get a result, it would have to, I stress HAVE to, be a single location where people could go and read the different styles and techniques involved in any specific subject, written by professionals, with videos showing how each technique is applied, with forums and chat windows connecting you to people studying the same subject, with links to other websites that other professionals have made gives more specifics about any one technique and where you can take tests, or watch videos that ask you about the subjects of which you've been reading/watching to insure that you've actually accumulated the knowledge. That just doesn't exist yet, I'm not saying it does nor do I expect it too soon, it was a hypothetical form of education that would/could replace formal university study. However excluding #6 on noobsensai's list of reason's why a Wikipedia Education can't work, I think everyone point is covered, and made easier by an internet based education. 1. The Human interaction isn't limited too those student who chose your specific university it's a global connection, allowing you to ask anyone, anywhere, about subjects your studying and gain knowledge from and give knowledge too anyone willing to read it 2.Your connection with an expert/experts would be made more thorough in the same way a a youtube video allows you to listen to the person posting it. Rather than competing with 100+ students for the professors time and attention, you would simply post a comment or thread answerable by any of the experts in a given field. 3. Chatroom's based around a single subject matter, forum posts, comments on expert's videos, comments on the written articles posted, access to an entire internet full of other communication forms that AREN'T restricted by geographical location? If anything an Internet based education allows for more knowledge to be passed amongst peers at a faster rate. 4. ^^ though I guess you could add facebook groups to the list (that was a joke) 5.It would be dramatically easier for professionals in any specific field of study to be able to look at someones post history, theirs interaction with other users, their questions to themselves and other professionals in an online format, not to mention you'd be able to easily learn whether they actually knew the subject your hiring for. And as for #6, if the form of education changed, so would our method of hiring, and It makes dramatically more since to be able to look through someone work, knowledge, and communication history than it does to trust a university to vouch for it. But I think the greatest benefit of a Wikipedia Education is this: It's Free! It could be easily shared with countries who don't have access to university education, it could be joined, used and shared across the world with relative ease. I'm getting very very very far ahead of myself but the main point I'm trying to make with all of this is that ,simply, it's not just reading a bunch of text on a screen as opposed to reading a bunch of text on a chalkboard, the internet is at it's most fundamental level a way to communicate and share knowledge across the globe and education is the process of imparting/acquiring knowledge, and, in my opinion,it's fast approaching the time the two were combined.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 7, 2010 5:37:08 GMT -5
In regard to the last two posts and the 6 points that they addressed, I find that the Wikipedia Education is a good idea but there are caveats to it that would allow it to offer the benefits outlined by noobsensei that are currently unattainable. Before an internet-based structure can truly be considered a better form of education - world wide - than an institution based education:
1)The internet must be reachable everywhere: There are many people around the world who may be capable of providing insight in a global community that would further the education of everyone who takes part in an internet based education. They may be your like minded peers but in an area of the world that you have never been to. Unfortunately they cannot share their insights because they cannot reach everyone else. So to have full access to interaction with like minded peers, we must bring the internet to everyone.
2)There must be more experts: There are those who have the expertise to teach others what they know and how to apply what they know, but the demand for this education is far greater than the number of those willing to give it out on the internet, even if they get payed handsomely for it. The ratio of people asking questions to experts who are capable and available answer them, is far too drastic. 3)Unfortunately for #3 there is a bit of an issue with an internet based education that really has no resolve There is no doubt about it that the internet is the fastest way to pass knowledge from one to another, but understanding of this knowledge is typically acquired slower, and in order to use knowledge we must be able to understand it. While understanding of the concepts is still possible, it requires more effort than a class-based system and is thus less likely to be achieved. -example of this- Suppose I have two student's of equal intelligence caliber both trying to learn basic calculus. If I give one student the text book, which has all of the facts and information in it, along with brief (typically poorly explained) derivations of how and why things are working, and I also gave him access to ask me and all of the other calculus teachers questions via an online forum and his questions were answered promptly, this student has all of the tools necessary to learn calculus and understand it at his disposal. Suppose I teach the other student, who is in a college sized classroom, the way I would teach calculus to a college class. Then, that student has the ability to stop me mid-lecture to ask a question as to why it works, even if I don't like being interrupted mid lecture, he has access to me after class and by email. He also has the added benefit of me explaining extra things in class that aren't necessarily in the text book, nor are they things that I would take the time to put in a response to an online forum question or email. Just by having personal access to me, though I am only one calculus teacher and not among an entire group of professionals, this student would have to do less work to gain more understanding. To gain an equivalent amount of understanding, the first student would have to ask far more questions, which if answered by different sources could provide possibly conflicting notations or mismatching explanations.
4)Obviously there is no replacement for social interaction on a personal and physical level, something that is difficult to achieve via the internet: There are those who use the college institution to physically discover not only who they are but how they are going to think about things for the rest of their lives. They do this by doing extra curricular activities with people with whom they are physically associated with, not virtually. This however doesn't mean that an institution based education is necessary for these things can happen in any physical community. It is just more plainly observed in the college community.
5)Students must be able to network with employers online: This has already started to happen in wide abundance. I know that my university has a system called ePack, where business that are looking for interns and graduates post their classifieds with restrictions based on course of study and such things as that. Then the system notifies every student who meets the criteria of that job posting. Those who respond, begin discussing job details over the internet either via email or sometimes even through a live chat feature in the system. This is a fabulous way of networking with employers over the internet as it gives the same level of interaction as you would achieve meeting a recruiter on campus.
6)There must be some form of institution that standardizes certain things in the Wikipedia Education, so that employers can accurately use the internet to measure the quality of an applicant. : - the reason for this is explained by the following - If we assume that the Wikipedia Education is the widely globally used method of education and knowledge sharing, then how would people hire others? Even if everything in society is based in the internet, then you have no proof that anyone who looked up information actually knows anything about it let alone understands it. You cannot know what someone does on the other side of that computer screen, even you have record of them spending hours and hours using the appropriate tools, asking good questions, and going extra miles to find answers. Just because the mode of learning is changed doesn't mean the mode of hiring has. Employers want proof that you are more qualified than everyone else who wants the spot. Without wasting the time to test each applicant, there is no way of measuring who is the best. Well let's add something to the grand idea of the Wikipedia Education - that it provides a set of questions to answer...like a test for each concept of material that your employer expects you to know. Well then for each concept there is a test that is good enough such that if an employer looks at your internet history and sees that you have past tests X,Y,Z...etc. and you scored better than all of the applicants then he knows that you're the best. But that means that there are tests through Wikipedia Education that are...standardized. How can this be unless Wikipedia Education is somehow based as an institution and not a free access, self-evolving, always-being-updated-and-changed source of knowledge over the internet?
So if in the future, we can provide the internet to everyone, have more experts capable of sharing their knowledge and understanding, a strong sense of community both online and offline, an online system for employer-applicant interaction, and an institution that keeps up-to-date standardized tests, available in this Wikipedia Education, then an online system of education may be possible.
Until the day when all of these caveats are met, we should put the idea of global internet Wikipedia Education on the back burner, so we can focus on perhaps uniting the globe under the internet, and other things that are necessary for its success.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 7, 2010 5:50:46 GMT -5
That took a very very long time to write...I think I'm burnt out on education for a while haha!
Even if it's not the best way, I certainly like learning in college instead of having to lookup information on the internet. Being able to sit in class for an hour and take notes seems to give me enough understanding to pass my classes, and I don't have to spend my time online looking up information, and instead I can spend it debating grand ideas with other intellectual people about a subject that affects millions around the world and provides ideas for the future.
|
|
|
Post by dandelions8910 on Mar 7, 2010 15:18:37 GMT -5
I think there is a very pertinent point that almost everyone has blatantly ignored:
Not all universities are the same.
I have a rather unique point of view because: I've been to public school in the #48 state(Alabama) in education for 13 years, I started public college last semester(dual enrollment at UA, yes, that school who won that championship or something), and I've visited enough of the schools I may be attending next year to get a(hopefully) good enough feel for their approach to education. Also, both my parents are college professors at UA, where there are about 30,000 students.
Now, I have had one single class in my high school that made me appreciate my education. It was discussion based, I was involved in what I studied, and my teacher truly cared about me and about my ideas. I think that considering who Dan is, with as many ideas as he has, he needs something like that, like I do. My college so far has been 2 online courses and 1 lecture hall style class. The only reason I'm passing that(1st semester calc) is because my father is a math professor and if it's 3am I can go into his room and ask him what's going on. There are 95 students in that class. We do exactly what Dan was talking about....sit down, write notes, are asked to repeat those notes. This is the exact same model the blinding majority of my high school classes have had. I should probably note that I'm not saying that high school and college are the same. I know there are many differences, but I'm just talking about my experience. So, back to my point: the schools I'm applying to. They are all based on the type of experience I got in my AP English class: discussion, student input, and true understanding of the material. My problem is that questions and interaction are not only not encouraged, but they are discouraged. We aren't supposed to wonder. That scares me. I've felt suffocated throughout my entire education so far and the only thing that kept me going was first that I had to be there, but then that college would bring me what I needed. It wasn't until last semester that I knew what I wanted, but I knew it had to be out there. If I had had this experience at college, I would have most likely dropped out too.
And this is where I deviate from such strong agreement with Dan: I would have a plan to go back. I would find the school that was prepared to give me the kind of education I need(and obviously, that sort of learning isn't for everyone, and that's fine. But for me, I will not get through the next 4 years without it). I would find what I needed and go out and get it. And I'm sure what Dan needed, for him, right now, was either not out there or not from a school. But I don't think he was correct in saying that ALL education was wrong(I feel like he may not even have meant that, I wouldn't have expected a generalization like that). Even if the vast majority of education is like that, not all of it is. And not all of it is for everyone. People learn differently. Some people, like thunderf00t, can have facts thrown at them and toss them back without any difficulty, but I need a lot more reinforcement than that. I need to connect with the teacher and the material to understand and learn it, and I'm not satisfied with simply spitting memorizations back at my teachers anymore. Example: My AP Government/Econ class, my teacher wanted it to be one of those fact based classes, but this was the same semester as my AP English class where I could ask any question I wanted and get a straight answer. I asked a question that was very pertinent to what we were learning, only more real-world based(we were learning exchange rate and i asked whether the cost of living in China was less or if the exchange rate was just better) and he could not answer the question. That scared me. And incidentally, Dan himself answered this question once(it's both). If a 19 year old college dropout can teach me something that my teacher can't(and, I thought, should be able to), why should I take what that teacher says any more seriously? Admittedly, even if he didn't know, he could have figured it out, but he simply beat around the bush, not willing to acknowledge that he wasn't sure. Part of being intelligent is knowing what you don't know.
Anyway, this is far too long and I doubt many people will get this far so to conclude, everyone is different and there are many different types of universities. Also, I got overly annoyed when thunderf00t ignored every subject besides science. I thought that was a little too closed-minded. And I've been waiting for a long time for someone to notice that there are ways that schooling can interfere with education. I'd been thinking about that since middle school.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Mar 7, 2010 18:48:16 GMT -5
I just want to say that after watching both videos, I'm with Dan on this one. I wouldn't go so far as to drop out of college, though, mostly for career reasons. However, Dan's really an exception to this rule. He's already got a career going and it's improving every day, and in his case college is indeed a hindrance.
Mostly, I think thunderf00t is...a moron. He played entirely off of Dan dropping out of college and morphed all of his ideas. If you watch Dan's entire video, it is completely logical. And, Dan would have said what he did whether he dropped out of college or not. I probably would have taken the response more seriously if thunderf00t didn't use that tiny fact in an attempt to make all of Dan's points invalid.
|
|
|
Post by noobsensei on Mar 8, 2010 3:51:29 GMT -5
I just want to say that after watching both videos, I'm with Dan on this one. I wouldn't go so far as to drop out of college, though, mostly for career reasons. However, Dan's really an exception to this rule. He's already got a career going and it's improving every day, and in his case college is indeed a hindrance. Yeah but who knows if it's actually going to be a viable career. With the world changing as quickly as it is, there is little reason to expect that making videos for YouTube will be profitable forever. Maybe it will be, but I wouldn't count on it. If that's what Dan wants to do for now and he's able to support himself, I can understand his decision (although I still think it's foolish) as long as he leaves the door open to going back. And while he seemed to do that just after he dropped out, this video showed how embittered he was becoming about school. I hope that after the dust settles from this experience, Dan will be more like the Dan just after he dropped out (Dropping out is a bad idea for 99.9% of people, and I can always go back if I need to) instead of the Dan from the education video (College sucks and is becoming obsolete). Mostly, I think thunderf00t is...a moron. He played entirely off of Dan dropping out of college and morphed all of his ideas. If you watch Dan's entire video, it is completely logical. As I understood it, Dan articulated two main problems with university education: It's impersonal, and it just teaches you "facts." First of all, in my university experience, neither of those things were true. But more importantly, what is the alternative that Dan proposes? He doesn't really say, but if it's some variant of the Wikipedia/Google education, it would be even MORE impersonal and even MORE fact-centered than a university education. And, Dan would have said what he did whether he dropped out of college or not. I strongly disagree. The entire video, from beginning to end, sounded like a self-justification for dropping out of school and a way for Dan to vent his frustrations, rather than a serious critique of the education system.
|
|