Living in Thailand has its ups and downs.
One of its downs is definitely dealing with administration in Thailand.
I've learned a lot living in Chiang Mai. And an enlightening lesson has been the difference between hard infrastructure and soft infrastructure.
Hard infrastructure refers to the tangible stuff we can see. It's the hospitals, the schools, the highways, the electricity, the communication lines. Thailand is a mid-level developed country now. Sure it's a little dirty sometimes, but there are decent roads throughout the country, some nice hospitals, and electricity works most of the time. Heck, the majority of Chiang Mai even has 3G coverage which is better than some western cities. So hard infrastructure is not lacking.
Where Thailand is lagging behind the world is in soft infrastructure. Soft infrastructure is the policies of governments and organizations, the banking systems, the cultural and social events and education and welfare of the people.
Here's some examples of how soft infrastructure is lacking here in Thailand.
Example 1: My wallet gets pick pocketed in Bangkok. Although I have a Thai bank account, a passport to prove my identity and a police report to confirm the theft, Siam Commercial Bank requires me to go back to the original branch I opened the account (in Chiang Mai) to replace the card or take our money. Why? Because I don't have the bank book.
It is easier to replace my Australian bank card here in Thailand. Unfortunately the banking system is more complex than it needs to be here, and stories like this are not uncommon.
Example 2: Every year to apply for my education visa, I need to go about 1 hour before the immigration office opens to get a ticket. I'll usually be there most of the day. In my application I need to resubmit 2 photographs, a copy of my university application letter (from 2 years ago), up to date academic transcripts of all semesters studied, a personally created letter from the university administration and photocopies of all my past visas and entry stamps.
The process is improving which is good to see, but I still have to ask why they need further copies of things like my university application letter, which hasn't changed, and should be on file.
Example 3: When applying for my drivers licence, I needed to have a medical certificate to test my blood pressure and eye sight. This needs to be less than 30 days old (because apparently in Thailand one's eyes can degrade in the space of 30 days). My certificate of 40 days was not accepted. I spent 5 hours going between government buildings and hospitals.
When I went to renew my licence a year later, I was told that if I renewed before the expiry date, I would only get a one year licence. If I came back after it expired, I would get a 5 year licence. This rule doesn't make any sense to me.
Example 4: In order to study 8 subjects one semester (the normal allowed limit is 7), I had to fill out a form that had to be signed by my advisor, the head of the department, the head of the business school, and by the vice president of the university. This took 3 days.
In fact the time it takes to deal with administration it so well known here that people expect most dealings to take a full day. A business owner I know here says that there is several days a year of "occasion leave" reserved just for dealing with administrative issues.
Not only does it waste a lot of time here, it also encourages people to not try and change anything or do anything new. It is a big resistance to people who want to try and be creative or entrepreneurial.
It has become clear to me living here how soft infrastructure is just as important as hard infrastructure if a society wants to grow.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Pragmatics, or context in language
All human languages consist of four elements that combine to convey meaning.
First we have lexis, or vocabulary which contain informational content to the listener. We define symbols such as "apple" to mean a certain type of fruit.
Secondly there is syntax, a set of rules (many implicit) that define how words are combined to form meaning.
Then there is phonetics, which dictates the sounds that constitute words (infrasgemental) and whole sentence or phrasal intonation (suprasegmental). Phonetics contains information that written language does not, such as emphasis, emotion and the speakers intentions.
In language study, most learners and teachers focus on these three. The idea is that if enough words are known, if the rules and pronunciation are practiced until they become automatic a person will have complete knowledge of the target language.
There is a fourth component in language that is often considered minor and omitted in the classroom, or at best included at the final stages of a language program.
Pragmatics is the study of the combination of context and sentences to create meaning.
Without provided context, language is provided in sentences. With included context, it is called an utterance.
In literal situations, context seems unnecessary ("the apple is green"). Many times that is fine.
But in languages that have very different social and cognitive norms, context may be essential, even in literal situations.
In Thailand, discussing money is a normal situation. In western cultures it is not. The myriad of different cultural rules like this are difficult to learn on an explicit base. But either explicitly or implicitly they form a part of the language that cannot be removed.
Here commenting on somebody's weight is fine, but only if they are of lower status or of the same level. Many social situations rely on context to determine what is and isn't appropriate to say.
Even cognitively, people can think differently in different languages.
English often uses pronouns to describe events "John broke the vase", whereas in Spanish or Japanese, speakers are more likely to say "The vase was broken", leading to a tendency for English speakers to blame others for accidental happenings.
English and French speakers think about time differently. In French, we have two main past tenses. One, the passé composé, refers to an event that happened in the past as a complete unit. Much in the way that we would use the past simple in english ("I did it"). The other, the imparfait, describes an action taking place over time. In English we can use the past progressive (I was -ing) to describe being in the middle of something when something else happens, and the imparfait can be used this way. But it also refers to something that had a long duration, such as "l’année dernière, je travaillais avec mon père", which we would translate as "last year, I worked with my father". However the French gives us an indication it wasn't a one off event, and it went on for a time, probably for the majority of the year.
Even simple situations such as the use of correct tense aren't always learned through teaching of explicit rules and the only way to learn these correctly is enough input of natural language until the learner can sense the correctness.
Once we get to ambiguous situations such as "you have a green light" as mentioned in the wikipedia entry, context becomes necessary to determine what is going on.
Most teachers and language learners probably don't argue with that. But for some reason they feel that it is an advanced subject and should be learned after vocabulary, grammar and phonetics. I believe differently.
A learner should be introduced to as much natural language as they can at early stages, even when deciphering vocabulary. The language that people are exposed to creates a memory every time. While weak, with repetition of comprehensible input, the mind uses its subconscious function of pattern recognition to create implicit rules.
It is this ruleset that gets created by the mind that the learner refers to when they seek to produce language. If high level of learning is to be achieved, the learner needs to build an accurate ruleset as early as possible. If the learner is pushed into production too early, they risk transferring the ruleset from their first language onto the language they are trying to learn.
This is how you get a person who speaks English like a Korean, or who speaks Thai like an American.
Once the ruleset is created (or transferred), it is very hard to replace, or perhaps cannot be replaced, depending on who is asked.
This is the reasoning behind ALG as a foundation method. And while some may not agree with the input only approach, serious learners of any language should at least try and maximize their input at the earliest possible stages, if they want to get to a native level.
First we have lexis, or vocabulary which contain informational content to the listener. We define symbols such as "apple" to mean a certain type of fruit.
Secondly there is syntax, a set of rules (many implicit) that define how words are combined to form meaning.
Then there is phonetics, which dictates the sounds that constitute words (infrasgemental) and whole sentence or phrasal intonation (suprasegmental). Phonetics contains information that written language does not, such as emphasis, emotion and the speakers intentions.
In language study, most learners and teachers focus on these three. The idea is that if enough words are known, if the rules and pronunciation are practiced until they become automatic a person will have complete knowledge of the target language.
There is a fourth component in language that is often considered minor and omitted in the classroom, or at best included at the final stages of a language program.
Pragmatics is the study of the combination of context and sentences to create meaning.
Without provided context, language is provided in sentences. With included context, it is called an utterance.
In literal situations, context seems unnecessary ("the apple is green"). Many times that is fine.
But in languages that have very different social and cognitive norms, context may be essential, even in literal situations.
In Thailand, discussing money is a normal situation. In western cultures it is not. The myriad of different cultural rules like this are difficult to learn on an explicit base. But either explicitly or implicitly they form a part of the language that cannot be removed.
Here commenting on somebody's weight is fine, but only if they are of lower status or of the same level. Many social situations rely on context to determine what is and isn't appropriate to say.
Even cognitively, people can think differently in different languages.
English often uses pronouns to describe events "John broke the vase", whereas in Spanish or Japanese, speakers are more likely to say "The vase was broken", leading to a tendency for English speakers to blame others for accidental happenings.
English and French speakers think about time differently. In French, we have two main past tenses. One, the passé composé, refers to an event that happened in the past as a complete unit. Much in the way that we would use the past simple in english ("I did it"). The other, the imparfait, describes an action taking place over time. In English we can use the past progressive (I was -ing) to describe being in the middle of something when something else happens, and the imparfait can be used this way. But it also refers to something that had a long duration, such as "l’année dernière, je travaillais avec mon père", which we would translate as "last year, I worked with my father". However the French gives us an indication it wasn't a one off event, and it went on for a time, probably for the majority of the year.
Even simple situations such as the use of correct tense aren't always learned through teaching of explicit rules and the only way to learn these correctly is enough input of natural language until the learner can sense the correctness.
Once we get to ambiguous situations such as "you have a green light" as mentioned in the wikipedia entry, context becomes necessary to determine what is going on.
Most teachers and language learners probably don't argue with that. But for some reason they feel that it is an advanced subject and should be learned after vocabulary, grammar and phonetics. I believe differently.
A learner should be introduced to as much natural language as they can at early stages, even when deciphering vocabulary. The language that people are exposed to creates a memory every time. While weak, with repetition of comprehensible input, the mind uses its subconscious function of pattern recognition to create implicit rules.
It is this ruleset that gets created by the mind that the learner refers to when they seek to produce language. If high level of learning is to be achieved, the learner needs to build an accurate ruleset as early as possible. If the learner is pushed into production too early, they risk transferring the ruleset from their first language onto the language they are trying to learn.
This is how you get a person who speaks English like a Korean, or who speaks Thai like an American.
Once the ruleset is created (or transferred), it is very hard to replace, or perhaps cannot be replaced, depending on who is asked.
This is the reasoning behind ALG as a foundation method. And while some may not agree with the input only approach, serious learners of any language should at least try and maximize their input at the earliest possible stages, if they want to get to a native level.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
3 minds: Lesser, middle and greater
In meditation, we commit to explore the subjective reality of our mind.
As such it is a kind of "software" or functional model of the mind, as opposed to western psychology which seems mostly interested in observing the hardware.
But what do we mean by mind?
The western concept of mind now refers to thoughts and emotions, visual images and words. In meditation we call these mental constructs or contents. But they are not the mind itself.
As we move from concentration exercises to wisdom exercises, we are getting to know the boundaries of our mind. In the process we redefine what mind is.
At first we are still easily distracted by mental contents such as memories and imagination and so we think of mind as being the cognitive processes of the brain. This is how all mentally untrained people tend to think of mind. This is sometimes referred to as the "lesser" or little mind.
As a meditator progresses, their strength of mind increases, and the strength of distracting input decreases. This allows us to notice the more subtle sensations that also fall within the boundaries of mind.
Sometimes referred to as "greater" or big mind, we realize that whatever falls within the realm of observable sensation is contained in what we call "mind". We start to realize what we thought of as mental contents, such as memories, are actually a compound of sensory information, much in the way a software program is just a bundle of data. In the meditators mind, the sensate level, the level of pure sensation is the data level, and is subject to its own characteristics that will likely end up the subject of a later post.
Although the differentiation is not normally made, I am making a separation between what I am calling the "middle" mind and the "greater" mind for an alternate perspective.
The middle mind is composed of the sensory experience of our body. When we have explored our thoughts, memories and emotions enough, we start becoming bored of this range of experience and our mind turns towards the exploration of physical sensations. We observe their characteristics, their arising, their duration, and their passing away processes. It is at this level that some aspects of a meditators physiology may change.
Certain hormone levels and physiological reactions, such as food allergies, chemical addictions, and stress related gastrointestinal problems can resolve themselves at this time (although getting to this stage takes 1000's of hours and it is not guaranteed to fix these issues). It is also at this stage that people become less dependent on mood enhancers such as alcohol and drugs, and less dependent on material factors for their own wellbeing.
Science is beginning to look more closely at what is called the "enteric nervous system" estimated by some as containing more than 100 million neurons, our gut brain is more complex than the brain of many domestic cats. There is also evidence that this brain functions largely independent of our cognitive one. New research is being conducted in the use of psychoactive drugs and therapies to resolve digestive issues.
The "greater" mind also involves other people. As even physical sensations become less intense, the mind expands further and our empathy increases. Not only do we become more aware of our own moods, we also become more aware of others. We can start to feel the intentions of others more clearly. This is a double edged sword, as most people don't hide what they feel or think as they believe no one will notice. So we start to become more aware of the true nature of the people around us. This can be a time when meditators (like myself) prefer to be secluded most of the time, or become very selective about the people they surround themselves with. It is also a time however, that true compassion begins to blossom, and being able to share in the joy that others feel is one of the most rewarding aspects of connecting to the "greater" mind.
Psychologist back in the 90's have found what they call "mirror neurons" in primates and in humans. It offers a hardware explanation for what is experienced by well practiced meditators. The research has shown that parts of our brain (and likely our body) imitate the same sensations of the being we are viewing. So if we empathize with anothers pain, we are literally feeling the same pain. Even on the neural level, we are connected to everyone around us.
Vipassana could be described as "a way to explore and understand your subconscious self". It is also a process which synchronizes the conscious and subconscious parts of a person, so that eventually nothing needs to be repressed. There is a compromise between the subconscious mind and conscious that grants true freedom.
But connecting to greater mind goes beyond that. At one point it becomes hard to feel distinctly separate and isolated from other people. We realize that our emotional state, whether it be happy or sad, angry or calm, doesn't stay with us, but leaks out to those around us. And the states of others affect us in the same way.
At this stage, Vipassana practice becomes an imperative. Once we experience that mental wellbeing isn't just about us, but that the training we do affects those around us, we know that we are no longer meditating just for ourselves, but for everyone.
As such it is a kind of "software" or functional model of the mind, as opposed to western psychology which seems mostly interested in observing the hardware.
But what do we mean by mind?
The western concept of mind now refers to thoughts and emotions, visual images and words. In meditation we call these mental constructs or contents. But they are not the mind itself.
As we move from concentration exercises to wisdom exercises, we are getting to know the boundaries of our mind. In the process we redefine what mind is.
At first we are still easily distracted by mental contents such as memories and imagination and so we think of mind as being the cognitive processes of the brain. This is how all mentally untrained people tend to think of mind. This is sometimes referred to as the "lesser" or little mind.
As a meditator progresses, their strength of mind increases, and the strength of distracting input decreases. This allows us to notice the more subtle sensations that also fall within the boundaries of mind.
Sometimes referred to as "greater" or big mind, we realize that whatever falls within the realm of observable sensation is contained in what we call "mind". We start to realize what we thought of as mental contents, such as memories, are actually a compound of sensory information, much in the way a software program is just a bundle of data. In the meditators mind, the sensate level, the level of pure sensation is the data level, and is subject to its own characteristics that will likely end up the subject of a later post.
Although the differentiation is not normally made, I am making a separation between what I am calling the "middle" mind and the "greater" mind for an alternate perspective.
The middle mind is composed of the sensory experience of our body. When we have explored our thoughts, memories and emotions enough, we start becoming bored of this range of experience and our mind turns towards the exploration of physical sensations. We observe their characteristics, their arising, their duration, and their passing away processes. It is at this level that some aspects of a meditators physiology may change.
Certain hormone levels and physiological reactions, such as food allergies, chemical addictions, and stress related gastrointestinal problems can resolve themselves at this time (although getting to this stage takes 1000's of hours and it is not guaranteed to fix these issues). It is also at this stage that people become less dependent on mood enhancers such as alcohol and drugs, and less dependent on material factors for their own wellbeing.
Science is beginning to look more closely at what is called the "enteric nervous system" estimated by some as containing more than 100 million neurons, our gut brain is more complex than the brain of many domestic cats. There is also evidence that this brain functions largely independent of our cognitive one. New research is being conducted in the use of psychoactive drugs and therapies to resolve digestive issues.
The "greater" mind also involves other people. As even physical sensations become less intense, the mind expands further and our empathy increases. Not only do we become more aware of our own moods, we also become more aware of others. We can start to feel the intentions of others more clearly. This is a double edged sword, as most people don't hide what they feel or think as they believe no one will notice. So we start to become more aware of the true nature of the people around us. This can be a time when meditators (like myself) prefer to be secluded most of the time, or become very selective about the people they surround themselves with. It is also a time however, that true compassion begins to blossom, and being able to share in the joy that others feel is one of the most rewarding aspects of connecting to the "greater" mind.
Psychologist back in the 90's have found what they call "mirror neurons" in primates and in humans. It offers a hardware explanation for what is experienced by well practiced meditators. The research has shown that parts of our brain (and likely our body) imitate the same sensations of the being we are viewing. So if we empathize with anothers pain, we are literally feeling the same pain. Even on the neural level, we are connected to everyone around us.
Vipassana could be described as "a way to explore and understand your subconscious self". It is also a process which synchronizes the conscious and subconscious parts of a person, so that eventually nothing needs to be repressed. There is a compromise between the subconscious mind and conscious that grants true freedom.
But connecting to greater mind goes beyond that. At one point it becomes hard to feel distinctly separate and isolated from other people. We realize that our emotional state, whether it be happy or sad, angry or calm, doesn't stay with us, but leaks out to those around us. And the states of others affect us in the same way.
At this stage, Vipassana practice becomes an imperative. Once we experience that mental wellbeing isn't just about us, but that the training we do affects those around us, we know that we are no longer meditating just for ourselves, but for everyone.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Why I chose to study at Payap University
I knew I wanted to study in Asia. I just didn't know where it would be.
I was 27 and I had a plan to study abroad. I like the challenge of living in different cultures. It can be frustrating at times, but I feel like I learn something new almost every day.
Perhaps because my first experience in another country was in Korea, I have always had a cultural interest in Asia.
So I applied a process to narrow down my choices of University. My criteria were:
Initially, South Korea and Japan were obvious choices. There are a few international courses, but it would be very difficult to meet the financial criteria only working 10 hours per week. The language barrier would also be a major issue. Teaching English is not legal there until a person has an undergraduate degree. And I didn't wish to do anything that would jeopardize my studies. So they were out.
China was another option, however I worried about political censorship in general. However at the time there where no international colleges teaching in English, apart from a few American colleges that charged American prices. China was out.
India had the opposite problem. Almost every course was offered in English. I searched for international business colleges and found over 100 of them. That's 100 colleges through the country that I knew nothing about. Also having almost left Thailand after the first 6 months due to culture shock, I'm glad I didn't settle on India. I probably wouldn't have made it. India was out.
Taiwan and Thailand offered the most promising courses. Taiwan had some international programs and as a plus I would be able to learn Chinese there. So I sent off emails to colleges.
Thailand has a half dozen international colleges, but most with good links are in Bangkok. I've been to Thailand, so it was a little familiar and less intimidating, but I freaking hated Bangkok. My last few experiences in the city have confirmed that I still hate it. It really is my least favorite city in the world. However I stumbled upon a university in Chiang Mai that had good links around the world, what sounded like a good program, and met my criteria. I sent them an email.
That college ended up being Payap University.
The university has teachers from all over the world and is exceptionally affordable, compared to most universities. It sounded too good to be true.
In some ways it was. At least in the first few semesters, the teaching standard was not up to my standard. Adding in some cultural shock, and administrative hassles, and I was ready to move or transfer after the first semester.
I don't know why but I stuck it out. And it's gotten a lot better. The senior teachers are usually quite knowledgeable and some have extensive experience (international NGOs, Wharton University, Asian Development Bank). All pretty impressive given the remote location of this University and its financial constraints.
The administrative hassles are still here, but they aren't anything more than the excessive bureaucracy that exists in most universities on top of a Thai love for arbitrary complications. You learn to deal with them. You also learn that in a country like this, the maxim "It's not what you know, but who you know" is even more important than in the west.
While the expectations of students are lower here, and they are not pushed as hard to study or threatened with failing marks as much, there is the same opportunity presented to learn here as in a western university. It's just that here the student needs to motivate themselves to exceed expectations. I find in some ways this is a much better preparation for the real world than having your hand held the whole way.
I will graduate in a years time satisfied that I have made a good choice. I have learned a lot about how to analyze business, I have absorbed a few cultural intricacies and I have matured a lot along the way.
And the Taiwanese universities? They never bothered replying.
I was 27 and I had a plan to study abroad. I like the challenge of living in different cultures. It can be frustrating at times, but I feel like I learn something new almost every day.
Perhaps because my first experience in another country was in Korea, I have always had a cultural interest in Asia.
So I applied a process to narrow down my choices of University. My criteria were:
- Somewhere I could live and study for under AUD10,000 a year after part time work
- Courses taught in English
- Part time work no more than 10 hours per week to focus on meditation and study
Initially, South Korea and Japan were obvious choices. There are a few international courses, but it would be very difficult to meet the financial criteria only working 10 hours per week. The language barrier would also be a major issue. Teaching English is not legal there until a person has an undergraduate degree. And I didn't wish to do anything that would jeopardize my studies. So they were out.
China was another option, however I worried about political censorship in general. However at the time there where no international colleges teaching in English, apart from a few American colleges that charged American prices. China was out.
India had the opposite problem. Almost every course was offered in English. I searched for international business colleges and found over 100 of them. That's 100 colleges through the country that I knew nothing about. Also having almost left Thailand after the first 6 months due to culture shock, I'm glad I didn't settle on India. I probably wouldn't have made it. India was out.
Taiwan and Thailand offered the most promising courses. Taiwan had some international programs and as a plus I would be able to learn Chinese there. So I sent off emails to colleges.
Thailand has a half dozen international colleges, but most with good links are in Bangkok. I've been to Thailand, so it was a little familiar and less intimidating, but I freaking hated Bangkok. My last few experiences in the city have confirmed that I still hate it. It really is my least favorite city in the world. However I stumbled upon a university in Chiang Mai that had good links around the world, what sounded like a good program, and met my criteria. I sent them an email.
That college ended up being Payap University.
The university has teachers from all over the world and is exceptionally affordable, compared to most universities. It sounded too good to be true.
In some ways it was. At least in the first few semesters, the teaching standard was not up to my standard. Adding in some cultural shock, and administrative hassles, and I was ready to move or transfer after the first semester.
I don't know why but I stuck it out. And it's gotten a lot better. The senior teachers are usually quite knowledgeable and some have extensive experience (international NGOs, Wharton University, Asian Development Bank). All pretty impressive given the remote location of this University and its financial constraints.
The administrative hassles are still here, but they aren't anything more than the excessive bureaucracy that exists in most universities on top of a Thai love for arbitrary complications. You learn to deal with them. You also learn that in a country like this, the maxim "It's not what you know, but who you know" is even more important than in the west.
While the expectations of students are lower here, and they are not pushed as hard to study or threatened with failing marks as much, there is the same opportunity presented to learn here as in a western university. It's just that here the student needs to motivate themselves to exceed expectations. I find in some ways this is a much better preparation for the real world than having your hand held the whole way.
I will graduate in a years time satisfied that I have made a good choice. I have learned a lot about how to analyze business, I have absorbed a few cultural intricacies and I have matured a lot along the way.
And the Taiwanese universities? They never bothered replying.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Why (most) universities can be replaced by testing centers
In many of my education based posts I write about how the system needs to shift its focus from task based skills to learning and thinking skills, and that for the most part, formal education needs to shift gears into 'informal' mode.
I don't think many educators in the developed world argue with the sentiment. But at the brink of a paradigm shift, the stress of uncertainty creates fear, and it becomes tempting just to leave things the way they are.
The counter attack to fear is knowledge. Here's my idea of what future universities would look like.
Universities have two main functions. They provide a level of assurance that the student has achieved an acceptable level of competency. They do this through testing, certification, and reputation. Secondly, they provide an environment where people can challenge themselves and their views, and discover new knowledge.
The first point can be replaced by testing centers. By approving national centers with detailed criteria to be met to prove a minimum level of competency, classes become unnecessary from this point. Instead, focus shifts on providing the tools and information necessary for the student to teach themself.
Providing an environment conducive to discovery and personal development is the second function. Often, the first point destroys the second. An overuse of testing has created a push for standardization of courses. This removes the flexibility of institutions and instructors to tailor their courses to the needs of their students.
If we go to university to prove our competence, all that should be important is that we can prove we are competent. How many hours we spend in a classroom and what is covered in the curriculum should be irrelevant, as long as examination and project work we can prove that we have learned the necessary skills. In the real world, competent is competent. After that, emotional skills become the determinant of success.
If universities are replaced with testing centers, what is left? What happens to the students time, and all the jobs of faculty and staff? And those shiny expensive buildings?
Well first we probably won't need so many shiny expensive buildings. That should start making things cheaper for students worldwide, and hopefully allow teachers to be paid better (which in my opinion is an often undervalued profession).
The jobs won't go away either. Students will still have administration issues. And the students will still need to learn information in order to pass courses. But they will need to initiate this learning, and in their own time. Much of the information can be accessed online. But to really benefit, students will need to do two things. Firstly share their ideas with peers, secondly get help from somebody with more experience.
The conversation between peers will change from a formal setting of "did you get what was going on in that class?" to an informal "I'm having trouble understanding X point, have you worked on that yet?" creating a drive for collaboration that builds real world skills.
Teachers would be less teachers, and more mentors that are consulted when students need help clarifying something. They can be guest lecturers for optional seminars, either of their own initiative or at student request. These jobs don't go away because students will still need people with experience to consult with and to guide them.
With less focus on standardizing every element of education, it frees up time for the student to pursue their own interests. If they do the bare minimum required to display competency, that's fine. If they take twice as long to do it as another student, that's fine too. They may be spending that time doing something else that builds character or is beneficial in some way. Or maybe not. But it doesn't matter. Competent is competent.
Or they may use that time to improve their knowledge of some subjects beyond what is required, simply because it interests them.
If left with a lighter workload and access to experienced mentors, I would likely have spent more time on studying macroeconomic policies of countries in the world and how it affects the modern political landscape and how corporate governance affects corporate financial strategies. Another business student I know might have studied more on social networking in the workplace and how to motivate people. That's fine. We're not going for the same job.
And that's the point. If we educate people the same way, they are all going to be looking for the same job and the same lifestyle, because that's what they've been trained for.
All this does is increase competition for what people think will make them happy. In the end, the only people who win this game are the lucky few who get to where they are told to go AND it suits their personality, and those that realize the game is rigged, and stop playing while they can.
I have a final point to explain the "(most)" in the title above. There are certain professions that require extensive supervised training that cannot be replaced by informal methods. Most of these are highly specialized professions, such as chemists, medical practitioners and engineers. Anything requiring extensive lab, clinical or other practical work cannot of course be replaced, but can certainly be incorporated in a similar education setting. They will just inherently have a more formalized structure out of necessity, but most people studying these degrees would expect no less.
I don't think many educators in the developed world argue with the sentiment. But at the brink of a paradigm shift, the stress of uncertainty creates fear, and it becomes tempting just to leave things the way they are.
The counter attack to fear is knowledge. Here's my idea of what future universities would look like.
Universities have two main functions. They provide a level of assurance that the student has achieved an acceptable level of competency. They do this through testing, certification, and reputation. Secondly, they provide an environment where people can challenge themselves and their views, and discover new knowledge.
The first point can be replaced by testing centers. By approving national centers with detailed criteria to be met to prove a minimum level of competency, classes become unnecessary from this point. Instead, focus shifts on providing the tools and information necessary for the student to teach themself.
Providing an environment conducive to discovery and personal development is the second function. Often, the first point destroys the second. An overuse of testing has created a push for standardization of courses. This removes the flexibility of institutions and instructors to tailor their courses to the needs of their students.
If we go to university to prove our competence, all that should be important is that we can prove we are competent. How many hours we spend in a classroom and what is covered in the curriculum should be irrelevant, as long as examination and project work we can prove that we have learned the necessary skills. In the real world, competent is competent. After that, emotional skills become the determinant of success.
If universities are replaced with testing centers, what is left? What happens to the students time, and all the jobs of faculty and staff? And those shiny expensive buildings?
Well first we probably won't need so many shiny expensive buildings. That should start making things cheaper for students worldwide, and hopefully allow teachers to be paid better (which in my opinion is an often undervalued profession).
The jobs won't go away either. Students will still have administration issues. And the students will still need to learn information in order to pass courses. But they will need to initiate this learning, and in their own time. Much of the information can be accessed online. But to really benefit, students will need to do two things. Firstly share their ideas with peers, secondly get help from somebody with more experience.
The conversation between peers will change from a formal setting of "did you get what was going on in that class?" to an informal "I'm having trouble understanding X point, have you worked on that yet?" creating a drive for collaboration that builds real world skills.
Teachers would be less teachers, and more mentors that are consulted when students need help clarifying something. They can be guest lecturers for optional seminars, either of their own initiative or at student request. These jobs don't go away because students will still need people with experience to consult with and to guide them.
With less focus on standardizing every element of education, it frees up time for the student to pursue their own interests. If they do the bare minimum required to display competency, that's fine. If they take twice as long to do it as another student, that's fine too. They may be spending that time doing something else that builds character or is beneficial in some way. Or maybe not. But it doesn't matter. Competent is competent.
Or they may use that time to improve their knowledge of some subjects beyond what is required, simply because it interests them.
If left with a lighter workload and access to experienced mentors, I would likely have spent more time on studying macroeconomic policies of countries in the world and how it affects the modern political landscape and how corporate governance affects corporate financial strategies. Another business student I know might have studied more on social networking in the workplace and how to motivate people. That's fine. We're not going for the same job.
And that's the point. If we educate people the same way, they are all going to be looking for the same job and the same lifestyle, because that's what they've been trained for.
All this does is increase competition for what people think will make them happy. In the end, the only people who win this game are the lucky few who get to where they are told to go AND it suits their personality, and those that realize the game is rigged, and stop playing while they can.
I have a final point to explain the "(most)" in the title above. There are certain professions that require extensive supervised training that cannot be replaced by informal methods. Most of these are highly specialized professions, such as chemists, medical practitioners and engineers. Anything requiring extensive lab, clinical or other practical work cannot of course be replaced, but can certainly be incorporated in a similar education setting. They will just inherently have a more formalized structure out of necessity, but most people studying these degrees would expect no less.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Social vs Economic development
One of the biggest choices governments can make is how to direct their country forward.
Development is always a sensitive issue that polarizes the people into one camp or another. On one side, we can use our limited resources for economic development, on the other, social development.
When governments make choices how to spend their money, they have to decide how much to divide into economic issues such as job creation, and social issues such as welfare.
Let's look at our handy Production Possibilities Frontier graph:
Point C represents a country that spends most of its resources in social development of the country. Point D tries to strike a balance between social development and economic development. And point B spends most of its resources on economic development.
Although most countries alternate between overexpenditure at point X (budget deficit) and underexpenditure at point A (budget surplus), most countries sit around the point B side of the graph. Why?
As industrialization set in, the concept of economic development was new and exciting. It was changing peoples lives in ways they had not imaged, and faster than they had anticipated. Many industrial nations moved firmly around point B during this time. Unfortunately, most of these nations have never moved since then.
This is fine for economically developing nations that are still seeing growth. But for countries that have already reached a certain level, the cost for more growth has gone up.
As we learn in economics, there is always a tradeoff when a choice is to be made. The choice we give up is the opportunity cost.
The problem with pursuing more and more economic growth is that it consumes more and more resources, and increases the opportunity cost of our choice.
Here we imagine a "maximum" GDP level for a country. GDP is limited by current technology so this limit can change, but in the short-term we can consider it fixed. We can see that in the above imagined example, the cost of getting a 1% increase at 90% is the same as a 20% increase from 0. This is a basic example to explain how the law of diminishing marginal returns works in this case.
In my posts on economics, I always try to show how we can use these concepts in our daily life.
While the above relates to government choices, we also face the same decision. But for us, time is our resource. Because we can make money and reclaim energy, but we can only spend time.
We can divide our time between a career and material means, and improving the social and personal aspects of our lives. We need to decide what is the most important for us.
In the western world one thing is endemic. We are pushing for more and more material gain, both on a national level and an individual level. But the cost to our social lives, and our wellbeing, is getting higher and higher.
It's important to realize that every choice we make in our life always has an opportunity cost. And if we need to consider these costs to know if we are making the "right" choices.
So you can ask yourself where your priorities are. Where you fit in the above graph, and what you're giving up for the choices you make.
Development is always a sensitive issue that polarizes the people into one camp or another. On one side, we can use our limited resources for economic development, on the other, social development.
When governments make choices how to spend their money, they have to decide how much to divide into economic issues such as job creation, and social issues such as welfare.
Let's look at our handy Production Possibilities Frontier graph:
Point C represents a country that spends most of its resources in social development of the country. Point D tries to strike a balance between social development and economic development. And point B spends most of its resources on economic development.
Although most countries alternate between overexpenditure at point X (budget deficit) and underexpenditure at point A (budget surplus), most countries sit around the point B side of the graph. Why?
As industrialization set in, the concept of economic development was new and exciting. It was changing peoples lives in ways they had not imaged, and faster than they had anticipated. Many industrial nations moved firmly around point B during this time. Unfortunately, most of these nations have never moved since then.
This is fine for economically developing nations that are still seeing growth. But for countries that have already reached a certain level, the cost for more growth has gone up.
As we learn in economics, there is always a tradeoff when a choice is to be made. The choice we give up is the opportunity cost.
The problem with pursuing more and more economic growth is that it consumes more and more resources, and increases the opportunity cost of our choice.
Here we imagine a "maximum" GDP level for a country. GDP is limited by current technology so this limit can change, but in the short-term we can consider it fixed. We can see that in the above imagined example, the cost of getting a 1% increase at 90% is the same as a 20% increase from 0. This is a basic example to explain how the law of diminishing marginal returns works in this case.
In my posts on economics, I always try to show how we can use these concepts in our daily life.
While the above relates to government choices, we also face the same decision. But for us, time is our resource. Because we can make money and reclaim energy, but we can only spend time.
We can divide our time between a career and material means, and improving the social and personal aspects of our lives. We need to decide what is the most important for us.
In the western world one thing is endemic. We are pushing for more and more material gain, both on a national level and an individual level. But the cost to our social lives, and our wellbeing, is getting higher and higher.
It's important to realize that every choice we make in our life always has an opportunity cost. And if we need to consider these costs to know if we are making the "right" choices.
So you can ask yourself where your priorities are. Where you fit in the above graph, and what you're giving up for the choices you make.
Friday, May 13, 2011
The team stages of acquiring language
If you take enough human resources classes or team building workshops, you invariably come across the "stages of a team".
They are: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning.
While the last adjourning doesn't apply for language studies (it's about disbanding the team), the first four can be used in the concept of joining a linguistic group (also known as learning a language).
Forming occurs in business when the team forms around a central concept or purpose. Basic timeframes, goals, and milestones are set out in this phase.
Storming is short for brainstorming. It is about gathering collective ideas from the team about how to best proceed. This information is then used to set initial tasks, responsibilities, and rules.
Norming occurs some weeks or months later after sufficient experience working together. The team discovers the interpersonal dynamics of the group and the most fluid and efficient way of working together.
Performing is a result of these established norms. It is the stage at which the team performs at optimum functionality and starts to focus on achieving the goals of the team.
In regard to language learning, the list might look a little like this:
Of these four stages, it is only in the fourth stage that production of the language (speaking and writing) is recommended.
In modern business it is usually accepted that a team needs to be taken through the first three stages as quickly yet comprehensively as possible in order to enable to team to function at a high level. Without the establishment of adequate norms, business research shows that teams operate less efficiently and have unforeseen problems, often due to miscommunication.
Most successful adult language learners do so with large quantities of input. Not all of these learners focus on this as the first thing, but at one stage or another they do. My observations of these people (and my own experience) tell me that to know how to appropriately use a language, students must have sufficient exposure to the language in order to establish norms. Only then can they start to learn to produce the language accurately.
They are: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning.
While the last adjourning doesn't apply for language studies (it's about disbanding the team), the first four can be used in the concept of joining a linguistic group (also known as learning a language).
Forming occurs in business when the team forms around a central concept or purpose. Basic timeframes, goals, and milestones are set out in this phase.
Storming is short for brainstorming. It is about gathering collective ideas from the team about how to best proceed. This information is then used to set initial tasks, responsibilities, and rules.
Norming occurs some weeks or months later after sufficient experience working together. The team discovers the interpersonal dynamics of the group and the most fluid and efficient way of working together.
Performing is a result of these established norms. It is the stage at which the team performs at optimum functionality and starts to focus on achieving the goals of the team.
In regard to language learning, the list might look a little like this:
- Forming - establish purpose of learning, set milestones and communicate expectations for the language methodology, outcomes and common difficulties.
- Storming - establish a set of classroom conduct and curriculum structure based on needs analysis of students (what they want to learn, to what level, why they want to learn, etc)
- Norming - large levels of native target language input to establish linguistic norms and notice examples of most common usage of language, e.g. terms and phrases used in specific social situations and with specific subject matter.
- Performing - production phase of language. When the students have adequately established norms of the language and can focus on achieving the goals set out in the forming stage.
Of these four stages, it is only in the fourth stage that production of the language (speaking and writing) is recommended.
In modern business it is usually accepted that a team needs to be taken through the first three stages as quickly yet comprehensively as possible in order to enable to team to function at a high level. Without the establishment of adequate norms, business research shows that teams operate less efficiently and have unforeseen problems, often due to miscommunication.
Most successful adult language learners do so with large quantities of input. Not all of these learners focus on this as the first thing, but at one stage or another they do. My observations of these people (and my own experience) tell me that to know how to appropriately use a language, students must have sufficient exposure to the language in order to establish norms. Only then can they start to learn to produce the language accurately.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
How does Vipassana work?
In my last post on Vipassana meditation I declined to go into the theory of how Vipassana works, because there simply wasn't enough space.
In Vipassana, sustained attention to a mental habit with the intent of not reacting to it "unwinds" the habit. I will attempt to describe how the process may work on hardware (neural) and software (mental) levels.
Neurally our brain and nervous system is made up of connections called synapses. The synapses come together to form what is called the neural network. Synapses can change over time due to stimulus. Donald Hebb proposed in the 1940s his theory that gives us the term "neurons that fire together, wire together", the scientific equivalent of "use it or lose it".
The theory shows how with repeated stimulus between certain neurons, the synaptic strength increases, and with lack of stimulus, the strength fades. It shows how the brain and nervous system reconditions itself over time.
I propose that conditioned mental habits form a kind of synaptic circuit in the system which is sustained at a subconscious level. By bringing it to attention we gain the ability to not react if we choose, the same way we can control our breathing, but only focus our attention on it.
This can explain how research conducted on buddhist monks have shown significant rewiring of the brain, such as increases in gamma wave activity. Other studies are making neuroscientists revise the upper limits of what they thought the brain was capable of.
Vipassana has long been concerned with the experience of the meditation process. Through discussion and sharing, many common elements have been compiled over thousands of years.
The theory then is not primarily concerned with the physical structure of the body, but rather the experience of the person. It is for that reason that I refer to it as an experiential theory. It attempts to explain the "software" of the mind.
This meditation has the fundamental concept of Sankharas or Samskaras. This refers to what could be translated as mental habit patterns, like our neural circuits above.
Like in neural networks, through repeated conditioning, our mental habits grow stronger. In Vipassana, Sankharas refer to any kind of response to internal or external stimulus that has been conditioned in the mind. They can be emotional responses to physical sensation, words, visual or other sensory input. Anything that is a reaction to stimulus can be considered a Sankhara, provided it has been conditioned in the mind.
What is considered conditioned or unconditioned is not always obvious, however after many years of practicing, a meditator becomes more familiar with the unconditioned nature of mind and this provides an experiential comparison. A reflex to physically withdraw from a source of pain is an unconditioned response, but the feeling of anger or other emotional response is conditioned. This is the "second arrow" we often shoot ourselves with (See the parable of two arrows).
Sankharas lay dormant until activated by stimuli, in a way like ticking time bombs. A person who has many Sankharas usually feels helpless in the face of the external world, as they are easily affected by external events. Sometimes they feel helpless against their own mind. Their mind is chaotic and not in their control. By a process of removing these, the person begins to feel more free and more in control of their life.
In the model, Sankharas require energy from the mind to maintain their strength. Like we can imagine an electrical circuit that needs to be fed electricity to be maintained. When we bring to attention a meditation object, it activates a Sankhara. Whether this comes from a feeling, an emotion, a sound, or any other external or internal sensory input, our attention triggers the reaction pattern that is stored in the mind. The key aspect is to observe these objects with nonreactivity, a skill referred to as equanimity in Vipassana.
Buy observing objects without reacting, the strength of the reaction begins to wane and it follows a process in the reverse direction to conditioning. This deconditioning continues until the Sankhara is removed completely.
This has the effect of freeing energy for the mind in the way that removing processes from task manager frees up resources for the CPU. Removal of Sankharas allow the mind to become clearer and more objective, hence the meaning of Vipassana as "to see things as they really are".
In Vipassana, sustained attention to a mental habit with the intent of not reacting to it "unwinds" the habit. I will attempt to describe how the process may work on hardware (neural) and software (mental) levels.
Neurally our brain and nervous system is made up of connections called synapses. The synapses come together to form what is called the neural network. Synapses can change over time due to stimulus. Donald Hebb proposed in the 1940s his theory that gives us the term "neurons that fire together, wire together", the scientific equivalent of "use it or lose it".
The theory shows how with repeated stimulus between certain neurons, the synaptic strength increases, and with lack of stimulus, the strength fades. It shows how the brain and nervous system reconditions itself over time.
I propose that conditioned mental habits form a kind of synaptic circuit in the system which is sustained at a subconscious level. By bringing it to attention we gain the ability to not react if we choose, the same way we can control our breathing, but only focus our attention on it.
This can explain how research conducted on buddhist monks have shown significant rewiring of the brain, such as increases in gamma wave activity. Other studies are making neuroscientists revise the upper limits of what they thought the brain was capable of.
Vipassana has long been concerned with the experience of the meditation process. Through discussion and sharing, many common elements have been compiled over thousands of years.
The theory then is not primarily concerned with the physical structure of the body, but rather the experience of the person. It is for that reason that I refer to it as an experiential theory. It attempts to explain the "software" of the mind.
This meditation has the fundamental concept of Sankharas or Samskaras. This refers to what could be translated as mental habit patterns, like our neural circuits above.
Like in neural networks, through repeated conditioning, our mental habits grow stronger. In Vipassana, Sankharas refer to any kind of response to internal or external stimulus that has been conditioned in the mind. They can be emotional responses to physical sensation, words, visual or other sensory input. Anything that is a reaction to stimulus can be considered a Sankhara, provided it has been conditioned in the mind.
What is considered conditioned or unconditioned is not always obvious, however after many years of practicing, a meditator becomes more familiar with the unconditioned nature of mind and this provides an experiential comparison. A reflex to physically withdraw from a source of pain is an unconditioned response, but the feeling of anger or other emotional response is conditioned. This is the "second arrow" we often shoot ourselves with (See the parable of two arrows).
Sankharas lay dormant until activated by stimuli, in a way like ticking time bombs. A person who has many Sankharas usually feels helpless in the face of the external world, as they are easily affected by external events. Sometimes they feel helpless against their own mind. Their mind is chaotic and not in their control. By a process of removing these, the person begins to feel more free and more in control of their life.
In the model, Sankharas require energy from the mind to maintain their strength. Like we can imagine an electrical circuit that needs to be fed electricity to be maintained. When we bring to attention a meditation object, it activates a Sankhara. Whether this comes from a feeling, an emotion, a sound, or any other external or internal sensory input, our attention triggers the reaction pattern that is stored in the mind. The key aspect is to observe these objects with nonreactivity, a skill referred to as equanimity in Vipassana.
Buy observing objects without reacting, the strength of the reaction begins to wane and it follows a process in the reverse direction to conditioning. This deconditioning continues until the Sankhara is removed completely.
This has the effect of freeing energy for the mind in the way that removing processes from task manager frees up resources for the CPU. Removal of Sankharas allow the mind to become clearer and more objective, hence the meaning of Vipassana as "to see things as they really are".
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Bangkok vs Chiang Mai life
After visiting Bangkok a few times and lived in Chiang Mai a few years, I thought I'd share my experience of the differences between life in the capital and life in Chiang Mai.
Bangkok is more international. It's easier to find a more worldly and diverse social group than in Chiang Mai. It also has more bookstores and better shopping for specialty goods, like training equipment. The extra social clubs would probably make living there long term more interesting. And lastly, it is cheap and convenient to travel to many locations in Asia.
Unfortunately, it is more expensive when compared with Chiang Mai. Food that costs about 30 Baht up here is normally about 45 Baht in Bangkok. Small studios with air con that are about 3,000 Baht a month are around 5,000 in Bangkok.
Another major issue for me in Bangkok is that I can't get out of "Tourist Thailand".
Tourist Thailand is what I call any area where if you see a westerner, they are probably a tourist. In Tourist Thailand, every Thai person assumes I am a tourist as well. This attracts the kinds of Thai people who want to rip me off or steal from me or otherwise make me feel uncomfortable.
In Chiang Mai I live in the suburbs. Here the westerners are either going to the local shopping mall or study at my university. Most people in the local area have seen me before. And nobody reacts surprised or shout "falang!" when they see me. I can just go about my business and enjoy my time here. I like that.
Chiang Mai is a 20 minute city. That is, almost everything is 20 minutes away. If you drive more than that in any direction, you are in the countryside. Or driving in the 1 hour a day there are traffic jams.
Socially, there is not a lot to do in Chiang Mai. And most of it involves drinking. For someone who is practically a non drinker, this is very limiting in terms of entertainment.
In general the city is very laid back. It is so laid back however, that it is hard to find people who are ambitious about anything. I tend to be lazy, but I also have a craving for change. It is for this reason that although my time in Chiang Mai has been good, I will be more than ready to move on when I graduate.
Bangkok is more international. It's easier to find a more worldly and diverse social group than in Chiang Mai. It also has more bookstores and better shopping for specialty goods, like training equipment. The extra social clubs would probably make living there long term more interesting. And lastly, it is cheap and convenient to travel to many locations in Asia.
Unfortunately, it is more expensive when compared with Chiang Mai. Food that costs about 30 Baht up here is normally about 45 Baht in Bangkok. Small studios with air con that are about 3,000 Baht a month are around 5,000 in Bangkok.
Another major issue for me in Bangkok is that I can't get out of "Tourist Thailand".
Tourist Thailand is what I call any area where if you see a westerner, they are probably a tourist. In Tourist Thailand, every Thai person assumes I am a tourist as well. This attracts the kinds of Thai people who want to rip me off or steal from me or otherwise make me feel uncomfortable.
In Chiang Mai I live in the suburbs. Here the westerners are either going to the local shopping mall or study at my university. Most people in the local area have seen me before. And nobody reacts surprised or shout "falang!" when they see me. I can just go about my business and enjoy my time here. I like that.
Chiang Mai is a 20 minute city. That is, almost everything is 20 minutes away. If you drive more than that in any direction, you are in the countryside. Or driving in the 1 hour a day there are traffic jams.
Socially, there is not a lot to do in Chiang Mai. And most of it involves drinking. For someone who is practically a non drinker, this is very limiting in terms of entertainment.
In general the city is very laid back. It is so laid back however, that it is hard to find people who are ambitious about anything. I tend to be lazy, but I also have a craving for change. It is for this reason that although my time in Chiang Mai has been good, I will be more than ready to move on when I graduate.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms
I just finished watching Ken Robinsons talk on changing education paradigms for about the 5th time.
I still manage to find something new from that talk every time I listen to it. It has some of the most concise and clear explanations for something I've felt for a time.
I've clumsily tried to express the same sentiments in posts such as one on formal vs informal education, and I will continue trying to do so. My hope is to improve my skill towards a level that Sir Ken Robinsons extensive experience has led him.
In high school I was very much an objective materialist. I was mostly interested in physics and IT. And as far as I was concerned, if something couldn't be proven to exist through a model, equation or hypothesis, it didn't really exist.
Somewhere along the line, a desire to have mastery over my mind led to a complete change in my personal paradigms.
A paradigm is a set of assumptions about how something works and the actions that result from it.
For me, the biggest change was how I viewed reality. After gradually transitioning from an intellectual to a meditator, I started to view that which is experienced as truly real. It was then the existence of that which could be explained in abstract terms that became more questionable.
This fundamental shift led to a complete change in my priorities in life, and the path I took. Instead of seeking richness of ideas and material wealth, I started a path of seeking richness of experience.
Paradigm changing moments can be scary because they shift the very ground under us. But they are sometimes necessary. And if done with clarity and intent, we can shift to a better place. Public education is at the brink of one of these moments.
I get a lot from Sir Robinsons talk. It's clear he feels the same, and he has the right amount of experience to be a good judge of this. One point that sticks in my mind is that public education was conceived for a particular purpose. Namely, to educate the masses to drive the industrial based economy forward.
And this kind of education is no longer wholly relevant. When the environment changed from an industrial base to a service base, the skillset needed has changed. Yet we educate our population as if we are a manufacturing based economy. Purely from an economic perspective this makes no sense. Sure, in some parts of the world (like here in Thailand), the economy is based on manufacturing. However even developing economies need to expand into services and innovative industries if they want to grow beyond this.
Our economies have become more diverse, complicated and unpredictable. As Ken says in his talk, we don't know what the economy will do a week from now. And we certainly don't know what it will look like 20 years into the future. So it's impossible to predict exactly what skills children today will need.
As I tried to convey in my above post, informal education concentrates on building learning skills. It trains children in the principles and attitudes they need to educate themselves. In the future. When they need it. We can be pretty certain that people will always need to be able to read and do basic math, but beyond some of the basics, the rest is questionable.
Sadly the talk misses the hardest part, how to change these paradigms and what a future education system would look like.
But the study on divergent thinking is interesting. I think it leaves a clue. Whatever the future looks like, it seems impossible to argue that people will never need critical thinking and divergent thinking skills. Critical thinking enables us to examine existing paradigms for its positive and negative effects, and divergent thinking enables us to create awareness for alternatives. The two go hand in hand in building an individuals healthy mind. And a society of healthy minds is a healthy society.
Whatever the future of education, I firmly believe that it needs to embrace these two skills to take a step in the right direction.
I still manage to find something new from that talk every time I listen to it. It has some of the most concise and clear explanations for something I've felt for a time.
I've clumsily tried to express the same sentiments in posts such as one on formal vs informal education, and I will continue trying to do so. My hope is to improve my skill towards a level that Sir Ken Robinsons extensive experience has led him.
In high school I was very much an objective materialist. I was mostly interested in physics and IT. And as far as I was concerned, if something couldn't be proven to exist through a model, equation or hypothesis, it didn't really exist.
Somewhere along the line, a desire to have mastery over my mind led to a complete change in my personal paradigms.
A paradigm is a set of assumptions about how something works and the actions that result from it.
For me, the biggest change was how I viewed reality. After gradually transitioning from an intellectual to a meditator, I started to view that which is experienced as truly real. It was then the existence of that which could be explained in abstract terms that became more questionable.
This fundamental shift led to a complete change in my priorities in life, and the path I took. Instead of seeking richness of ideas and material wealth, I started a path of seeking richness of experience.
Paradigm changing moments can be scary because they shift the very ground under us. But they are sometimes necessary. And if done with clarity and intent, we can shift to a better place. Public education is at the brink of one of these moments.
I get a lot from Sir Robinsons talk. It's clear he feels the same, and he has the right amount of experience to be a good judge of this. One point that sticks in my mind is that public education was conceived for a particular purpose. Namely, to educate the masses to drive the industrial based economy forward.
And this kind of education is no longer wholly relevant. When the environment changed from an industrial base to a service base, the skillset needed has changed. Yet we educate our population as if we are a manufacturing based economy. Purely from an economic perspective this makes no sense. Sure, in some parts of the world (like here in Thailand), the economy is based on manufacturing. However even developing economies need to expand into services and innovative industries if they want to grow beyond this.
Our economies have become more diverse, complicated and unpredictable. As Ken says in his talk, we don't know what the economy will do a week from now. And we certainly don't know what it will look like 20 years into the future. So it's impossible to predict exactly what skills children today will need.
As I tried to convey in my above post, informal education concentrates on building learning skills. It trains children in the principles and attitudes they need to educate themselves. In the future. When they need it. We can be pretty certain that people will always need to be able to read and do basic math, but beyond some of the basics, the rest is questionable.
Sadly the talk misses the hardest part, how to change these paradigms and what a future education system would look like.
But the study on divergent thinking is interesting. I think it leaves a clue. Whatever the future looks like, it seems impossible to argue that people will never need critical thinking and divergent thinking skills. Critical thinking enables us to examine existing paradigms for its positive and negative effects, and divergent thinking enables us to create awareness for alternatives. The two go hand in hand in building an individuals healthy mind. And a society of healthy minds is a healthy society.
Whatever the future of education, I firmly believe that it needs to embrace these two skills to take a step in the right direction.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
How I used opportunity cost to decide on a University
Opportunity cost is a term used in economics to define the cost of the choices we make.
In 2008 I faced an important choice.
I was teaching English in France, and while I was comfortable with my lifestyle and able to put money away, it wasn't challenging or rewarding to me. At 27 it seemed I should bite the bullet and get my undergraduate degree, before it was too late.
I had wanted to come back to Asia. I consider France a second home, but the variety and richness of cultures in Asia have always appealed to me. So after considerable searching and comparing costs and benefits, I settled on the International College of Payap University, Chiang Mai.
This brings me to the point of opportunity cost.
Economics is a science of choice and opportunity cost is defined as the choice we give up for the choice we make. Lets look at some of my choices:
First, the monetary differences:
Study in France for 3 years.
The tuition for the degree - AUD30,000 (private school) or AUD10,000 (public university).
Living costs are about AUD30,000 for the duration of the diploma.
Total cost: AUD60,000 (private) AUD40,000(public)
Study in Australia for 3 years.
Tuition for the degree - AUD30,000 (study loan possible).
Living costs are about AUD30,000 for the duration of the diploma.
Total cost: AUD60,000
Study in Thailand for 4 years.
Tuition for the degree - AUD15,000.
Living costs are about AUD20,000 for the duration of the diploma.
Total cost: AUD35,000
The result: Thailand. On monetary basis alone, Thailand comes out the cheaper option. My opportunity cost of studying in Australia compared to Thailand is a further AUD30,000. Almost as cheap is public university in France as a European citizen (I have a UK passport). However this might incur additional costs for example it might be necessary to move to Paris, where the costs of living is 50% to 100% more than other cities.
But as I've said before, economics is not about money. That is, money is not the only factor. So let me list some non monetary factors of my choices.
France
Australia
Thailand - Chiang Mai
The result: Thailand. Exposure to Asian cultures were a big draw for me. Here I study with people from Thailand, Burma, China, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, The Philippines as well as varies western cultures. The language and cultural learning opportunities are easily the best of the three options. Apart from French cuisine, my food options are more varied here in Chiang Mai. I also have a lot more free time here as it is a small city and everything is close by. My main cost has been that the reputation of a degree from Thailand may be viewed negatively from some institutions.
Even though the curriculum is based on US standards and has significant worldwide links (over 50 MOUs), some organizations may assume the quality of education is lower. Seeing as the Korean government will only accept University degrees from English speaking countries (for English teaching visas) anyway, a degree from France would not have helped me either.
By settling on my studies in France or Australia, my opportunity cost would have been in the realm of AUD10,000 to 30,000 financially, the opportunity to interact with many Asian cultural groups, encounter languages on a daily basis and having a significant amount of free time.
Studying in Thailand, my opportunity cost has been giving up on high quality French food and lifestyle (except for a small crappy studio I would probably be living in) and government support for my studies. In addition I have found that the average student age here is much younger, leading me to feel older.
But in hindsight, giving up food and ease of living (without visa hassles, cultural differences, etc) is a bargain, compared to having many hours more per week to myself, daily interaction with over a dozen cultures and an extra AUD30,000 in the bank account.
In 2008 I faced an important choice.
I was teaching English in France, and while I was comfortable with my lifestyle and able to put money away, it wasn't challenging or rewarding to me. At 27 it seemed I should bite the bullet and get my undergraduate degree, before it was too late.
I had wanted to come back to Asia. I consider France a second home, but the variety and richness of cultures in Asia have always appealed to me. So after considerable searching and comparing costs and benefits, I settled on the International College of Payap University, Chiang Mai.
This brings me to the point of opportunity cost.
Economics is a science of choice and opportunity cost is defined as the choice we give up for the choice we make. Lets look at some of my choices:
- Study in France for 3 years
- Study in Australia for 3 years
- Study in Thailand for 4 years
First, the monetary differences:
Study in France for 3 years.
The tuition for the degree - AUD30,000 (private school) or AUD10,000 (public university).
Living costs are about AUD30,000 for the duration of the diploma.
Total cost: AUD60,000 (private) AUD40,000(public)
Study in Australia for 3 years.
Tuition for the degree - AUD30,000 (study loan possible).
Living costs are about AUD30,000 for the duration of the diploma.
Total cost: AUD60,000
Study in Thailand for 4 years.
Tuition for the degree - AUD15,000.
Living costs are about AUD20,000 for the duration of the diploma.
Total cost: AUD35,000
The result: Thailand. On monetary basis alone, Thailand comes out the cheaper option. My opportunity cost of studying in Australia compared to Thailand is a further AUD30,000. Almost as cheap is public university in France as a European citizen (I have a UK passport). However this might incur additional costs for example it might be necessary to move to Paris, where the costs of living is 50% to 100% more than other cities.
But as I've said before, economics is not about money. That is, money is not the only factor. So let me list some non monetary factors of my choices.
France
- Good European and middle eastern food, but a lack of good Asian food
- Would be able to refine my French
- Would probably have to live in a tiny crappy apartment
- The occasional rude and aggressive people
- Racism
Australia
- Good all kinds of food
- Good weather
- No language improvement opportunities
- Full government support of studies
- The occasional rude and aggressive people
- Lack of little challenges and rewards that come from living abroad
Thailand - Chiang Mai
- Good all kinds of food except middle eastern
- Good weather
- Opportunity to learn another language
- Exposure to Asian cultures
- Extra time to focus on meditation
- Have to worry about visas, funds transfers, etc
- Degree doesn't receive the same reputation internationally
- Differenial treatment based on race
The result: Thailand. Exposure to Asian cultures were a big draw for me. Here I study with people from Thailand, Burma, China, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, The Philippines as well as varies western cultures. The language and cultural learning opportunities are easily the best of the three options. Apart from French cuisine, my food options are more varied here in Chiang Mai. I also have a lot more free time here as it is a small city and everything is close by. My main cost has been that the reputation of a degree from Thailand may be viewed negatively from some institutions.
Even though the curriculum is based on US standards and has significant worldwide links (over 50 MOUs), some organizations may assume the quality of education is lower. Seeing as the Korean government will only accept University degrees from English speaking countries (for English teaching visas) anyway, a degree from France would not have helped me either.
By settling on my studies in France or Australia, my opportunity cost would have been in the realm of AUD10,000 to 30,000 financially, the opportunity to interact with many Asian cultural groups, encounter languages on a daily basis and having a significant amount of free time.
Studying in Thailand, my opportunity cost has been giving up on high quality French food and lifestyle (except for a small crappy studio I would probably be living in) and government support for my studies. In addition I have found that the average student age here is much younger, leading me to feel older.
But in hindsight, giving up food and ease of living (without visa hassles, cultural differences, etc) is a bargain, compared to having many hours more per week to myself, daily interaction with over a dozen cultures and an extra AUD30,000 in the bank account.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)