The human experience starts in childhood. Childhood is when the being is molded from a biological potentiality to a human actuality. Once a mature human, whatever that may mean, finds its way out of childhood higher education should be there to offer whatever knowledge and skill will help it push itself and its society forward. In any society that values freedom, truth, and beauty "offer" is a word of primary importance. One of my main criticisms of our modern education system is its unnecessarily restrictive and demanding nature. Not demanding in the sense of challenging, but externally demanding. It is full of requirements and structures that only serve to limit freedom and minimize the possibilities. I understand the argument that all students should know some part of literature, or history, or science. But understanding cannot be forced. Understanding must be sought. If we live in an age of uninquisitive minds, then that is the fault of childhood, of primary education, and it would be best to deal with the problem there, and not attempt to bandage it by limiting freedom and possibility in higher education. Furthermore, these unnecessary limits breed not only totalitarianism and conformity, often the two things that the required courses are meant to deter, but also inefficiency. The walls of rules that maze higher education make it more expensive, more prone to politicking, and lead to power being held not by the customers, not by those eager to learn, but by administration, by authority, as if the school was paying the students. As you will hopefully come to understand, I am not belittling the very necessary organizational tasks of administration, I only strongly question the place of administration as a commander, or perhaps a demander. To simplify, I believe there is a more free, efficient, and inexpensive way to conceive of and structure higher education.
For the purposes of my ideas I have devised four categories of education. These are purely cosmetic categories for the purpose of this exploration of Higher Education, and by no means do they represent an attempt to generate a serious analysis of human thought or existence. These four categories exist on a scale from objective to subjective based on the methods of testing which are most effective for each. The most objective of these categories will be called Knowledge. Knowledge is fairly served by multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank type questions. The questions for Knowledge always have one clear objective answer that is either known or not known before the question is asked. The semi-objective category will be called Logic, which is fairly served by problems with solutions. There may be multiple ways of solving a given problem, and the answer is probably not known before the question is asked, but for Logic there should always be just one correct final answer. The semi-subjective category will be called Craft, which is fairly served by projects that have a specific well-defined objective and criteria for judging. The final, most subjective category will be called Art, which is effectively untestable. While craft is the skill that goes into the creative process, Art is the creative process itself, which is arguably impossible to grade in any objective manner. Art can only be criticized with varying reviews and interpretations depending on the viewpoint of the critic. In summary, the four categories are Knowledge, Logic, Craft, and Art.
I want to clarify what I mean when I say Knowledge is objective. I am not saying that the facts are undeniably correct, I merely mean to say that they are objective for the current context or for our current human knowledge. In other words, a multiple choice question about historical knowledge is asking what we currently understand about history. A true/false question about the laws of physics represents what we currently understand about physics. It can be objectively judged whether or not the answer given is in agreement with our current understanding. However, this limited time local objectivity should NEVER be confused with universal objectivity, whether or not that exists.
Education is often divided into chunks of related materials, these chunks will be called, as they commonly are, Subjects. Subjects often span multiple categories. An elaboration of the various types of Subjects follows:
Examples: Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Geography, Geology, Medical Sciences...
Hard science generally falls under Knowledge and Logic. For hard science knowledge would include the basic facts like "What are the primary colors of light?" "What elements are in a molecule of sugar?" or "Does the earth revolve around the sun or visa versa?" Logic in hard science would include problems involving the application of formulas like "How long would it take ball A to roll down incline plane B?" "How long will it take gas A to move from chamber B to chamber C?" or "Given unrestricted growth, how long would it take a single bacteria to multiply to 10,000 bacteria?"
Math, though not technically a hard science, is very similar to hard science in how one learns and tests it. Like hard science math consists mostly of Knowledge or Logic and includes basic questions like "How many Degrees are in a right angle?" and Logic problems like "x+5=25 solve for x."
Examples: Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology...
Soft Sciences fall under Knowledge, Craft, and Art. Knowledge for soft sciences would include basic facts like "Which part of the brain is responsible for visual perception?" Craft for soft sciences consists of short answer or essay questions. These questions are asked with a clear rubric in mind. There is some room for subjectivity and creativity, but certain principles and ideas must be addressed in the response. Examples include "Why is crime associated with poverty?" "What aspects of human development would Freud associate with preadolescence?" The Art in soft sciences lies in its non-concrete nature. It must be understood that soft sciences can rarely claim true objectivity. Theories are constantly under question and overturned in a more extreme manner than in hard sciences (except perhaps in the cutting edge of hard sciences). For this reason, there is always some Art to short answer and essay questions, in that the questions may be asked without a clear and objective answer existing in collective human consciousness. For this reason care must be taken to ensure that essay questions are in fact Craft if they are to be graded as such. There is no simple rule I can think of at this time to differentiate the two.
Language consists of Knowledge, Craft, and Art, much like the soft sciences. For language, Knowledge is vocabulary and grammar. Craft is practical speaking and writing tests with no mind to creativity, only correct grammar and clear and succinct presentation of ideas. Art is the ability to write and speak with purpose and beauty. Once the rules of grammar are known, writing becomes a means of artistic, not just mechanical, expression, and these rules, and the rules that guide any art, should be allowed and expected to bend and sometimes break.
Literature is the study of the language of others. Like other soft sciences and similar subjects, Literature consists of Knowledge, Craft, and Art. Knowledge includes who wrote what and what they said. Craft includes the analysis of grammar, logical fallacies, rhetoric, and literary tools. Art includes interpretation and criticism.
History is another soft science similar subject and includes Knowledge, Craft, and Art. Knowledge in history consists of "facts" as they currently stand like "Who was the tenth king of France?" Craft consists of questions like "What were the causes of World War II?" Art lies in interpretation of history, and can often be involved in Craft questions. As with all other soft science similar subjects, the Art in Craft essay questions should be left to criticism and not to testing.
Examples: Cosmetology, Computer Programming, Engineering, Mechanics...
Technical Skills are mostly Craft but often require previous Knowledge or Logic skills. Fixing the transmission in a broken car is Craft. Writing a computer program to perform a given task is Craft. However, in order to know how to fix a transmission you must know its parts, which is Knowledge, and in order to write many computer programs you must understand and apply certain mathematical principles, which is Logic.
Examples: Music, Movement, Theater, Design, Visual Arts...
The Arts are predominantly Art. They may require some Craft in order to do "well", but ultimately the creative act required makes them Art.
Philosophy itself is Art and only Art. Philosophy at its core is the conjugation of love and wisdom. Wisdom is unattainable without humility. Thus, the questions of philosophy are perpetually open. In this sense, philosophy cannot be tested, only criticized. However, the history of philosophy can be tested in a similar manner to other kinds of history and the literature of philosophy can be tested in a similar manner to other kinds of literature. The history and literature of philosophy is what most commonly occupies philosophy classes rather than philosophy itself, and it is my opinion that most “Philosophy” departments should be renamed “Intellectual History” departments. See the soft sciences section for more about history.
Now that the four categories of education are in place and the concept of Subjects has been examined, I would like to put an always controversial idea on the table: standardized testing. Standardized testing is a plague for primary education and for any Art. Standardized testing is often misapplied, leading to invalid results. However, standardized testing has important benefits.
If competent Knowledge, Logic, or Craft is required for further pursuit of a Subject or for adequate skill in a particular field, it must be ensured, for the sake of the student and those the student may interact with, that students who wish to progress to these occupations and fields of study are in fact competent. It serves neither the student nor any institution or society that a student should be permitted to slip into such studies and occupations without competence. Fortunately Knowledge, Logic, and Craft subject matter (unlike Art) are well suited for standardized testing. There are several problems with our current higher education system that could be solved with a standardization of Knowledge, Logic, and Craft testing.
For Knowledge and Logic homework and projects prove nothing in terms of competence. However, teachers often add homework and projects to help students “bring up their grades” thus undermining the purpose of grading. A standardized testing system focuses only on the test. Thus if the test is fair and tests what it should, it can truly judge competence.
For Knowledge and Logic much of the material can be learned without ever taking a class. Classroom grading requires that expensive classes be taken anyway thus discouraging self-study, whereas a standardized testing system allows a student who may already know the material to take the test without spending all that extra money on an unnecessary class.
In a standardized testing system the student need only prove that they are capable of answering questions, solving problems, or completing well defined projects by getting a desirable score on the test. This means that tests can be retaken as soon as one is available and the student is ready. With classroom grading, a bad grade in the class means the student must re-take the entire class, even if it was only one section of material that they didn’t understand. Being able to study just the parts that caused trouble and then retake the test provides a definite, and reasonable, advantage to students.
With a comprehensive standardized testing system that spans the collegiate environment, transferring could become little more than a change of residence. It becomes far easier to transfer “credits” for Knowledge, Logic, and Craft, since they would be test scores and would not change from university to university. Likewise, precocious students that have already studied certain material before entering college would be able to take standardized tests on that material, the scores of which would simply flow to their collegiate environment instead of the commonly used AP system, where certain colleges accept “credit” only for certain scores in certain subjects, making everything so much more uncertain for high school students.
In the current higher education system it can be difficult for employers and others to understand what a GPA really means. One has to consider the school and how “good” the school is, then one has to consider the major and how “good” that school is at that major, and an ambitious employer might want to look at what teachers the student had to see if they were “good” teachers or if the student just asked his older friends which teachers were the easy ones. A standardized score is therefore far more meaningful to an outside observer than a grade from a class.
However, there are also several problems commonly associated with standardized testing. One of these is that tests often do not test what they should. I have hope that this should not be a major problem. So long as standardized testing is kept from EVER being used for an Art, a major part of the problem is solved. Further, having taken AP classes and tests, of which the science and math tests are excellent representatives of a standardized Knowledge or Logic testing system, I am very confident that a standardized testing system under national and possibly international management and scrutiny would fairly test the intended subject matter, as the AP tests seem to.
A much more difficult problem with standardized testing is fear. Some students are simply “not good” at taking standardized tests. There seem to be two major reasons for this, test-anxiety and material-anxiety. Material-anxiety is when the student is not comfortable enough with the material. My answer to this is: Study more before you take the test. An easy way to determine whether a student truly has Test-anxiety is to give them a standardized test with extremely obvious material, such as addition questions, counting, and so on. If they struggle with that, they have test-anxiety, if they complete that with ease, tell them to get as familiar with the real test material as they are with those basic skills. Test-anxiety poses a more difficult problem, as test anxiety is fear of the process of test taking itself. The ability to take a test multiple times will hopefully relieve some of the anxiety. For those with truly chronic test-anxiety problems this slight comfort may still not be enough. It would, therefore, be a good idea to offer such students low stress, untimed, and psychologist observed testing. This should be reserved only for those who are entirely unable to handle the anxiety of test taking, and such a test is likely to be more expensive than the fairly cheep normal methods of standardized testing if government subsidies do not exist. Though such low stress tests should be available, they should not be relied upon. As always, I suggest that it would be more beneficial to deal with this problem at it's source, childhood. Finding ways to permanently end the problem is better than continually bandaging it.
The final of the four categories, Art, is, as I’ve said, untestable. Consider, though, that Art does not actually need to be tested. Those studying art do so with three major objectives, personal growth, self-employment, or employment by another. Obviously those learning Art for fun have no real need of testing, and the encouragement and criticisms of their teachers is the only “testing” they need concern themselves with. Likewise, those seeking self-employment have no need of testing as they need not demonstrate their skill to another before achieving their objective, they merely work and hope that the end result is in some way marketable, or meets their self-employment objectives, whatever they may be. Finally, those who seek employment from someone else, be it a graphics art company, a dance group, or a theater company, generally present two things, a sample of their work, and a list of their previous experiences. Thus even for a pursuer of Art for employment by another, grades and scores are entirely unnecessary. There is one case where Art may need to be graded: If a certificate of accomplishment, like a degree, requires proof of competence in an Art, like writing, and the student desires this certificate, then there must be some form of grading. This one exception will be examined in greater detail during the Certification and Practicality section.
Most education is not pursued merely to attain competence in a Subject. Subjects are usually pursued for a greater purpose, acquiring skills that can be used in the "real world". This kind of practical competence often not only requires proficiency in several Subjects but ultimately requires abilities that are, like Art, untestable. A persons test results in the various Subjects needed for practical competence in a given field may approximate their abilities, but factors like how a person works under pressure, how a person works with others, anxieties, motivation, and other "real world" issues are all impossible to test objectively. Therefore, the only fair test for practical competence is experience, and the only fair grade is a subjective review given by employers and peers. Note that it must be understood that these reviews will always be subjective and will always rely on limited information.
In the modern education system most students are working toward a degree, a certificate of accomplishment that opens doorways to new employment opportunities. In fact a great deal of the education system is bent to the concept of a degree, making any other educational pursuit more difficult. In a more open and free educational system students wouldn’t have to work towards a degree to truly engage in the system, they could simply be taking classes to augment their skills or learn something that interests them. However, it is possible to have a certification system similar to the degrees of today. This certification could include achieving certain scores on relevant standardized tests. Scoring higher on such standardized tests could help a student graduate with honors, like getting good grades in the current system.
Art requirements for whatever major the degree represents could include certification by school sponsored teachers or programs, this being the one type of situation where Art may need to be graded. For example, if some level of competence in writing were required for the degree, a student would have to go to the writing center until they prove to one of the teachers there that they meet the required level of skill.
It is also reasonable for degrees to require a demonstration of practical competence. This demonstration could include scholastic programs, like research assistant jobs, or an apprenticeship system that incorporates internships with companies outside the school. Once the administrators, teachers, or employers of such a program deem the student to be adequately skilled, or once the student has spent a certain number of hours engaged in such a program, they have met that requirement.
Of course demonstrating skills that surpass the norm would also help towards graduating with honors. For example, there might be an honorable mention attached to a degree for a student who participates in a community service program. It is certainly a good idea to award students with special honors who demonstrate greater academic or humanitarian accomplishments. However, in most cases I would strongly discourage having such higher accomplishments being mandated to receive a degree. A degree should represent a certificate of learning, an acknowledgment of a student’s skill in a certain subject. There certainly could be higher-level degrees with more rigorous educational requirements like the masters and doctorates of today.
It is also very important to remember that a degree is just a certificate of accomplishment. The structure of the education system should NEVER be focused around degrees. Students should NEVER be required or pressured to get a degree, and indeed it is possible for such an education system, as I have described, to exist with practical results without degrees. Consider that employers could have their own apprenticeships set up, with their own requirements to attain the apprenticeship. With a certain base of Knowledge, Logic, and/or Craft and recommendations from teachers for subject matter that cannot be tested in a standardized manner, a student could attain such an apprenticeship position. After working at the apprentice level for some time they may be promoted by their employer to a higher level, or they may seek self employment, or they may look for a better job elsewhere. This gives students greater flexibility and control over their own life. Either option is reasonable, and having both would not be redundant.
The analysis so far has come to the conclusion that an education system can exist without degrees and without classroom grading. Such a system is reasonable and good because it offers flexibility, which was one of the initial problems with education that I was attempting to solve. This lack of reliance on classroom grading may save students a great deal of money if they can motivate and educate themselves, thus reaching a greater level of inexpensiveness and efficiency, the other purposes of my exploration. However, my analysis so far has left many holes as to the tasks of students, teachers, and administrators. What follows is a more structural analysis of the system I propose.
Means of education need to be diverse and open. People learn in different ways, at different speeds, and need different levels of assistance. A list of various educational methods follows:
Simple independent study: The cheapest and most available method of learning. This basically includes library access. Students peruse books and practice Craft and Art in their free time.
Advanced independent study: The only difference between this and simple independent study is the level of technology used, which makes it slightly more expensive and possibly a little more limited access. This includes educational videos, computer programs, and other independent study tools. Again, students use these in their free time.
Open classroom: The open classroom is a space that contains the materials needed for a specific subject, usually Craft or Art. Examples include a dance, painting, or acting studio, a mechanics shop, a writing center, a computer lab, and more. These spaces exist for students to come and go as they please, and work as independently as they please. The communal feel allows peers to help one another in their studies, and professionals may wander the facility helping where they are especially needed. Such an open space could function on a membership or pay-per-visit basis. It is a little less independent and likely a little more expensive than the independent study methods, but is still more open than the standard scheduled class.
Apprenticeship: Apprentice education best serves Craft and Art. It provides experience and builds a resume at the same time. Note that it can also provide cheap if not free labor for employers.
Seminar: Best for Knowledge and Logic, the seminar is a large gathering of students with a single teacher and possibly an assistant. It is the cheapest form of scheduled class because of the high student to teacher ratio. A seminar could be for a single session or it could cover the teaching of an entire subject.
Class: A class is a scheduled gathering of a moderate number of students with a single teacher and possibly an assistant. It is more costly as the student to teacher ratio is higher. Like a seminar, a class could be a single session or an entire subject. However, classes differ from seminars as they are good for objective and subjective subjects, whereas seminars are generally best for objective subjects only.
Tutor: A single teacher with very few students. This is perhaps the most costly of educational methods but also provides the most support for students. Scheduling of this method is more flexible since less people are involved. This method could be used for a single session or for an entire subject.
Changes in the administration are also necessary to promote greater flexibility for students. Obviously the current main object of administration, to push and help students through the degree system, is not valid for an education system that does not rely or focus on degrees. Instead of administration being the master of the education system, it should be the assistant. Think of administration as the facilitators that help link teacher, student, and classroom space. When there is high demand for a particular class, a teacher gets space from the administration, and the administration publicizes the class to students. Of course, the administration could also assist in determining what the supply and demand are by providing a place for students to post subjects they’d be interested in studying, and teachers to post subjects and times they’d be interested in teaching. Besides providing that important educational link, administration would be involved with the maintenance and management of educational facilities, like normal classrooms and lecture halls, public libraries, and also open classrooms as described earlier. Administration might also involve itself in connecting students with internships, and students with student clubs. Overall though, the administration should be a support structure, a means of linking the various elements of education, and not as I said earlier, a master.
In addition to all the other connective jobs the administration carries out, connecting students with loan and scholarship opportunities is an important part of an effective education system. However, the administration should not provide students with scholarships that come from the administration. Nor should the administration provide funding for student organizations. While good students from poor backgrounds deserve equal educational opportunities, every dollar given to one student is taken away from another. With more developed loan, charity scholarship, and work-study programs, students of poorer background should have plenty of opportunity to fund their education. Also remember an entire education can be received with almost no cost to the student. With independent study and apprenticeship programs, a motivated student could work toward almost any job paying only minimal testing fees, and perhaps the occasional tutor or classroom fee for subject matter that is particularly difficult. Money given to unmotivated students just because of poverty or race is misplaced. Find ways to get that money to the childcare and elementary education levels so that such students can be raised to self-motivation and confidence. Again, don’t treat the symptoms, treat the illness.
The desired flexibility of this new system has several effects on teachers as well. Consider tenure. Talent is the only tenure valid or necessary for an education system truly interested in education. Also, considering that the administration is no longer master of the education system, there is no one to enforce something like tenure. Ideally there would be no one to hire or fire teachers. Instead, imagine a system where teachers work with the standing demand for education, teaching the courses that need to be taught with the help of the local university administration. In fact, this could be a great opportunity for teachers and for progress in the intellectual world in general. It frees teachers from the ties they have in the modern education system allowing them to travel if they wish, engaging with peers across the nation and possibly the world. Of course it’s also quite possible for teachers to set up camp at a local university and work there for years. By building up a reputation with students and the local administration, a decent teacher could still attain the equivalence of tenure with respect. It seems that the only teachers who loose as a result are those that are either not interested or unskilled in the art of real education. The research professors who work at the university for the facilities and not for the students might find their place disrupted, but let the research professors work on research and not increase the costs and lower the quality of the student’s education.
The first step toward making this vision a reality in our modern environment is to set up an inter-university standardized testing institution. Once this national standard is in place disconnecting grades from classes and associating grades to standard test scores will open the system considerably to independent study, and will allow for more transferable and meaningful evaluation of student skills. Then, to further open the system, encourage the development of national public libraries in all major cities where the testing can take place and where the entirety of the public can go to study and look for classes and tutors if necessary. Such libraries should also be developed in well populated suburban or collegiate communities if resources allow. These libraries could actually be university libraries that receive funding from the government to allow free library access to all citizens. Further, the library system could start to move online, allowing access to educational materials to even the most remote students. With the institution of more open campuses with the above-described educational techniques and administrative policies, the system is there. As you can see getting from where we are now to the vision I have is very practical and could take ten years or less with adequate support from the educating and educated community.