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.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
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)