<p>" When you think you learned a lot, you get the Bachellor's Degree;
When you think you can learn even more, you get the Master's Degree;
When you think and you finally realize you know nothing, you get the PhD." </p>
<p>I wonder how true is it... :D</p>
<p>
Of course, I know the answer now and it's Cartesian.
</p>
<p>That's funny that you mention that, we just worked through that exact same problem in my intro philosophy class, complete with using a desk as an example. I don't entirely buy everything Descartes says as an adequate answer though, he makes so many non trivial assumptions about the nature of god.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Education is what is left over after you've forgetten everything you've ever learned."
[/quote]
That definition of education originated with B. F. Skinner. </p>
<p>The actual quote was:
"Education is what survives when what has been learned has been forgotten." (New Scientist, May 21, 1964)</p>
<p>I like Abbott's take: <a href="http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0310/features/zen.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0310/features/zen.shtml</a></p>
<p>At the end of first years' orientation at the University of Chicago, a professor is chosen who gives an address called the "Aims of Education" address. A different professor gives the lecture every year, so there is a different take on the subject every year. The link Idad gave is to one of the past lectures. </p>
<p>I've always been worried about getting a good education. When I was younger, I would look at some of my dad's friends and see men who were knowledgeable, well-spoken, bright, and classy. I learned that almost all of these people completed the Great Books program at the College they went to together. When looking at schools, I really kept this in mind, and I tried to look at schools where I felt I would get a good education. I'm at the U of C now, and I truly feel that I am being educated; it's the biggest reason I love the school so much. Every day when I don't want to do my reading or I'm complaining about the amount of work, I can look up at my bookshelf and see all of the books that we've read, thought about, discussed, analyzed, and written about so far, books like the Iliad, the Bible, the Wealth of Nations, the Marx-Engles Reader, Plato, Rousseau, Aristotle, Durkheim, Levi-Strauss, St. Augustine, Dante, etc. I don't think that reading these books will automatically make someone educated, but I think that reading them gives one a place to start when searching for an education. Many of these people were searching for one, as well. I don't mean to just pimp my school, but your question really gets to why I chose the school I did. I chose to go here because I knew that the Core would teach me many subjects, and that I would become versed in subjects from the sciences to the arts, but I also chose it because I knew that it would give me a foundation, teaching me how to think and how to learn. I'd say that's a good place to start.</p>
<p>My 2 cents worth- education is available everywhere. Colleges/Universities exist to pass along knowledge and thinking skills in an organized fashion, you could learn/do most everything without them, but they are the most efficient way to learn what they offer and have documentation. Eg- you can read and discuss books but the formal setting gives you the people to do it with. Likewise you can build your own lab, etc, but at a much higher cost (one reason not all schools offer engineering). In the old days, before the early 1900's, medical education was highly unregulated, then standards were developed and very few schools remained, but you could trust those who called themselves doctor to have the medical knowledge of the day.</p>
<p>I have seen books that claim an educated person has certain knowledge, in literature and humanities, but I contend the sciences and math are equally important in considering one well educated. Being a "renaissance man" today is more like being a "jack of all trades and master of none" in this time- there is so much more known about our world that one doesn't have the time to learn everything. Two equally well educated people could have little knowledge in common. I'm uneducated in many fields, such as plumbing and other trades, but well educated (BTW, everything is relative) in medicine (or was).</p>
<p>Crossposted with the above post- his book listing is why I added my math-science comment- the nonscience people are not well educated if they don't include the sciences as well as historical works. BTW, all the above works are a Western (Eurocentric) biased knowledge base. The best education would include Eastern knowledge as much as European based.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Crossposted with the above post- his book listing is why I added my math-science comment- the nonscience people are not well educated if they don't include the sciences as well as historical works.
[/quote]
I agree, that's why I added the part about classes in different areas. I think that an educated person should have at least a passing knowledge of the major sciences. Most schools have distribution requirements to try to ensure a balanced educaion. My school actually requires two courses each in the physical sciences, biological sciences, and math (as well as three in social sciences, two-three in civilizations, two-three in the humanities, three in a language, and one-two in the arts). Again, that's just my view (and I'm a girl, by the way).
[quote]
BTW, all the above works are a Western (Eurocentric) biased knowledge base. The best education would include Eastern knowledge as much as European based.
[/quote]
I agree with this to an extent, and I think that this bias exists in most of America (which means I pretty much have no idea what I'm talking about on this subject, be forwarned). I would argue, though, that many of the most major works relevant in Western society were written by Europeans. I don't think you can get around Smith and Marx when looking at economics when studying the social sciences, for example, and I don't think you can avoid that Durkheim and Levi-Strauss really began the study of sociology and anthropology as it is today. Is study from a variety of sources important? Certainly, but I don't believe this necessarily means that the basis of study in a Western society shouldn't be founded primarily on Western works.</p>
<p>What Is Intelligence, Anyway?
by Isaac Asimov</p>
<p>Interesting essay, not on education but intelligence, which I hope is related!</p>
<p>PhatAlbert--I know what you mean about those entry level courses. Sometimes the most you can do is become aware of what you don't know and what discussions are going on in other fields so you can continue reading on your own as you go through life. It's pretty hard to be well-educated in ALL areas but you can learn enough to hold up your end of a conversation with an expert, even if all you do is listen and ask leading questions!</p>
<p>I like a quote from an early alum of Ohio State when commenting on the university, "The function of a university is not to teach the means of life only, but life itself; not only how to make a living , but how to live.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Education is what survives when what has been learned has been forgotten." (New Scientist, May 21, 1964)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well now I feel a little better about myself. I chaperoned a group of high school science and math whizzes to the Science Knowledge Bowl (DOE and Honeywell sponsored competition) a couple of weeks ago. I was in the room during the competitions, and was depressed at how many questions there were that I could have answered a couple of decades ago, but couldn't answer now if I had 30 minutes to hit the buzzer (as opposed to the 5-10 seconds these kids had). </p>
<p>I definitely agree that being well-educated in today's world must include more than a cursory introduction to the sciences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's funny that you mention that, we just worked through that exact same problem in my intro philosophy class, complete with using a desk as an example. I don't entirely buy everything Descartes says as an adequate answer though, he makes so many non trivial assumptions about the nature of god
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm assuming you read "Discourse on Method"? Yeah, the second part about the a posteriori arguments for God are pretty lame. I'm told that he wrote it to keep the Church off his back, and that it didn't work very well.</p>
<p>"PhatAlbert, I'm 50 and the longer I live the more ignorant I am."</p>
<p>That should have at least waited until age 52, when you'd be playing with a full deck.</p>
<p>Now that I am becoming more forgetful, I am also becoming better educated. (I could prove it if I could just remember what I forgot. ;))</p>
<p>I suppose one "operational" definition is given by bookstores who describe some books, typically in the science and math sections, as being for the "educated layperson." Those standing in those sections and reading a chapter or two from each and eventual pick one who then wander over to the humanities section and do the same must be those "educated" folks they talk about. But to mini's point, I have done this from time-to-time only to have my wife tell me when I get home that not only have I purchased the book, but have already read it!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I flip through my course catalog and I see SO many intro courses in SO many topics that i'm just not going to be able to take.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is the tragedy of goal-oriented college education. I earned the bare minimum number of major units to earn my degree in Political Science. Everything else was all over campus: philosophy, neurological biology, physics, history, computer science, math, sailing, weight training. Jr wants to be an engineer, and I was disappointed to see how little room for academic exploration is left when one is studying engineering.</p>
<p>Ironically, I haven't been in a college classroom since I graduated <em>cough</em> years ago. I learned how to learn back then. When I want to learn something new now I usually start by reading the contents of the King County Library on the subject, and then move on to more detail. It's not as thorough as learning from an expert on the subject, but it sure costs less and doesn't interfere as much with the rest of my obligations and hobbies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not as thorough as learning from an expert on the subject, but it sure costs less and doesn't interfere as much with the rest of my obligations and hobbies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not so sure about that, WashDad. True, an expert can suggest a reading list, provide supplementary materials, give you feedback on your assumptions and conclusions, but I've found that primary research that interests me tends to produce a deeper understanding of the topic at hand because I have to do all my own thinking.</p>
<p>That's for me, anyway.</p>