<p>I know that this topic touches on a very controversial subject. But I think that it needs to be brought up.</p>
<p>Among the points:</p>
<p>1) There are intrinsic differences between cognitive ability and learning style in students, and a "one-size-fits-all" approach clearly leaves many students behind, frustrated, or bored. Not to mention that many teachers actively discourage students from reading their own books in class.
2) Students do not take responsibility for their own education. They frequently attribute their successes and failures to their schools and their teachers, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that discourages them from seeking further resources. Moreover, students are often prone to make the "post hoc, ergo procter hoc" fallacy when they praise a class [when in reality, it may have been the student's studying, independent of what was covered in lecture]. Not to mention that lectures usually only repeat textbook material.
3) Online lectures from the best professors, released to the general public, rather than lectures from bad professors. You may argue that "well, students ask questions in class", but perhaps they would gain more if they asked questions on online forums like <a href="http://www.physicsforums.com%5B/url%5D">http://www.physicsforums.com</a>, asked the teacher in-person [teachers could still be trained, but more so to answering questions, rather than teaching], or discussed the material with fellow students. Moreover, online lectures allow students to rewind when they fall behind.
4) Some people don't even learn from lectures. Again, it's a matter of learning style. It's commonly known in math/science classes that "doing the stuff" is what counts, not passively listening to the material.
5) Many obstacles against self-studying come because there are few readily available resources for it. Very few students check out textbooks to study on their own [I know this since I have pretty much free access to whatever textbooks I need at my library]. </p>
<p>Moreover, many students do not have much academic independence (psychologically). They do not go to other university websites on their own initiative [there is A LOT of very useful information at other university websites - and so many varieties to select from]. I've also noticed that Princeton Review, Kaplan, and Schaum's Outline prep books often cover the material very clearly and can substitute for the role of the teacher [simplified, yes, but the teacher is supposed to simplify the content in the textbook and make it more accessible]. </p>
<p>As for the free market, I may argue that since most people have similar learning styles [I'm speaking from the viewpoint of someone with Asperger's Syndrome, so I see most people as very similar to each other, while I see myself as quite different], if they are entitled to an online education and have the ability to choose between styles that best suit their learning, then the technologies that students feel the "most comfortable with" will naturally be selected for [and will prosper]. Now, the problem is, of course, maintaining standards. As for that, exams administered by a central agency can do the job. As for those whose learning styles are very different from those of others, this may be more of a challenge. What if programs catering to their learning styles become "weeded out?" Moreover, they may tend to be the most different, so what works for others may not work for them. What I can say is that school is doing little good for them already. Moreover, perhaps they could petition to work with trained psychologists who are very familiar with student learning [wtih governmental funds]. </p>
<p>Moreover, it appears that even if evolution is taught in schools, apparently, most Americans still do not believe in it. I am no adherent to intelligent design, my favorite authors are E.O. Wilson, Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, but I also realize that students are apparently learning little from schools. If the layman's understanding of biology is assumed to be nothing [as biology writers often suspect], and most laymen who read popular science books are still well above average [since most Americans barely read at all], apparently, people are not expected to retain much from high school biology. </p>
<p>What of the social and economic inequalities between people? A considerable amount of research on tracking clearly shows that students tracked in the lower schools still gain virtually nothing [state tests demand little, and they still fail to meet them => this shows how little they are learning]. For those lowest in income, they can get school vouchers to choose the best education program for themselves. There is a pressing question for those of low IQ - do they know what is best for themselves?</p>
<p>Finally, the cliche argument, "the kids need real-life socialization." Socialization early in life is, of course, important, and it may still be good to keep educational systems in for the first years. But humans are naturally social creatures and will seek out others to socialize with, regardless of whether their socialization was forced in the classroom or not. Remember that public schooling is a recent phenomenon [actually only dating back to the turn of the 19th-20th centuries], and that people still had social skills before this period.</p>
<p>There are some better arguments, though. For example, this may exacerbate parental influence on children. But I think that in most cases at least, parents know better than schools what is best for their children. The problem is - parents already have so much influence over their children (though this is primarily unconscious => read "The Nurture Assumption" and "No Two Alike"). Personality traits have a 0.5 correlation to genetic factors, IQ 0.8. And of course, parents live in a place that decides the peer group of the children. And for intelligent students trapped under unfortunate parents, a hotline could be set up. ;-) [and the government could force the parents to allow the students access to the internet, to textbooks, to online materials].</p>
<p>Online education may not even be necessary [but exams will be]. Some students may be fine learning everything from the Internet. Of course, skills for information discretion at the Internet need to be taught, but those are the skills that are the most useful in this info-driven society. </p>
<p>What of textbooks? A lot of prep guides have content very similar to the actual textbooks [MANY people who self-study APs get 5's by ONLY reading the prep guides] and are far cheaper than them. Prep guides may be informal, but so is classroom discussion. Competition will naturally lower the prices among them [and of course, there will be different books catered to different audiences]. Again, vouchers for the poorest. </p>
<p>There may be problems though. What of those who truly need the guidance of another due to psychological dispositions? [and face to face contact is often far more successful for them]. Hmm? I'm not advocating for public school abolition, but for those that continue to exist, they should be revamped. Moreover, teachers are generally not that personal especially after middle school, and the students already get little. </p>
<p>Finally, I think the arguments can apply to college as well (even more so). Online discussion boards can substitute for philosophical in-class discussions [and provide much more diversity in thought]. Moderators can be as strict as teachers. Math/science is always done best by oneself, of course. Universities can stay for labs and research. </p>
<p>It is ACTIVE self-directed learning that stays in the memory, not PASSIVE learning. Meanwhile, one can easily sit in through class, wasting hour after hour after hour after hour.</p>
<h1>Finally, highest accolades to MIT for its OCW. BTW, there are excellent websites on other subjects at other sites. "site:.edu" is an excellent keyword for Google searches. </h1>
<p>Here are a few links that I like: [note, I know that many of these people have political positions that many of you may disagree with - and their political positions are clear on their other posts. I disagree with many of their political positions too, but I think that they have summed up the argument on education the best]:</p>
<p>A good refutation of the "asking questions in class argument":</p>
<p>
[quote]
Putatively mature though they may be, lots of college students don't like to engage in in-class discussions. The larger the class, the more truth there is to that. Online discussions and virtual classrooms are different. Students can speak with relative anonymity, the time constraints and discomforts of a sterile setting are removed, and ideas can be expounded upon or more fully defended. Certainly some will thrive in this environment, anyway.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's clear that people dislike in-class discussions, especially question-asking in lectures. The high membership in this Facebook group is testimony: [it's global; just my Facebook link says it as Washington]
<a href="http://washington.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2216613701%5B/url%5D">http://washington.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2216613701</a></p>
<p>Charles Murray's 3-part take:
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531%5B/url%5D">http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531</a>
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009535%5B/url%5D">http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009535</a>
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009541%5B/url%5D">http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009541</a></p>
<p>==</p>