At some point during the second tutorial of my Open University course, I began to see a bit of the other side of education to the one that always annoys me. This is, I think, a good thing if I am to continue.
The second tutorial felt like much better value than the first, and we packed a lot of useful work into it. Almost the most important for me was the chance to talk to someone higher up the tutorial structure, who was sitting in, about where to go from this existing course, and how far my past qualifications will take me without covering the same ground again. I suspect I wasn't the only one who felt that the first tutorial lacked something, as only six people turned up for this one. But we were the winners, in my opinion.
It has always seemed to me that formal education puts a higher premium on conventional thinking than it does on useful knowledge. And I have chafed against that, because I would always want to cover ground that appears "old" as quickly as possible in the hopes that the cutting edge of the subject studied is where the action is. Even after my little flash of enlightenment I can't quite escape the suspicion that most higher education imparts its benefits at the cost of a freshness of view that can be a very valuable asset. Many things, once forced into a container of convention, not only lose their zing but also a percentage of their range of possibilities, put beyond reach by being off the beaten track of established thought patterns.
But what occurred to me while talking about the subject matter I am currently studying was that the few people who manage to acquire the conventions while also preserving their own originality do gain something very precious. And that is the gift of communication. Originality and freshness is undoubtedly valuable, but its utility is limited without the means to share it. Being able to work within an established mode of thought and language puts large amounts of the subject onto a routine basis, so that exchange of thought is efficient - and the new thoughts quickly reveal their worth or faults to the community.
Of course, it all runs the risk of becoming fossilised, just jargon and repetition, but I think I see why it's worth the risk now. I know several people who are naturally gifted musicians and have a suspicion of music theory (including printed music) that is similar to my dislike of formal study. They think that it would stunt something that they have naturally, and aren't sure the benefits are sufficient compensation. Yet I know at least one who was pushed through the process of learning music theory by a teacher who refused to accept that as an excuse, and the combination of natural talent and proper training puts him some way ahead of those who have chosen to hang back. Because something MIGHT curb spontaneity doesn't mean it WILL curb it.
I suppose those who tear themselves free of the rigidities of brethren thought tend to head one of two ways: either continued wariness of any systems of thought at all that might impinge on the hard-won freedom inside the head, or refuge in some kind of replacement, that might or might not be a better system but at least provides external certainties. Neither, as a sole guide, can be healthy, so I am glad to be able to adjust my thinking a little bit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I've often wondered why some notions about formal education are so persistent. For example, the idea that a premium is put on conventional thinking.
In my experience of undergraduate and graduate education, the emphasis usually moved beyond conventions to the underlying theory. For example, in statistics we covered mode, median, mean and standard deviation in the first few weeks. Then things got tough, with Venn diagrams, one and two-tailed tests, Chi Squares, and more. Without an understanding of the principles of populations, sampling, randomness, and null hypotheses, these things quickly become meaningless. Someone who has absorbed all the conventional knowledge has absorbed quite a bit.
Further, there are few ways to improve ones writing better than from having it reviewed and marked up by a teacher. In my experience, it is a rare person who is willing to read carefully someone else's work and comment constructively. Certainly there are self-taught writers who write well, but precision in expression comes from repeated correction, in my opinion. A teacher who makes rigorous assignments is doing his or her students a service.
Post a Comment