About the reform of education and humanities
What is called about sore. The other day, I took credit from first-year students. For the test it was necessary to write a small - 1-2 pages - written work on how a newly-minted student sees himself in a specialty. Looking ahead, I’ll say that there were no special requirements. Clarity and liveliness of thought would be enough.
What did I encounter?
To begin with, students completely lost the ability to clearly present their thoughts on paper. No, thank God, they have not forgotten how to add letters to words. But as you move from words to sentences, paragraphs and the whole text, the meaning dissolves. That is, you can understand what the paragraph is about. But to understand what the whole text is about is virtually impossible.
At the same time, the authors of the works sincerely believe that they wrote texts full of deep meaning, “creative” (where did they manage to learn this word?). At the same time, the authors themselves cannot explain the main line of their opus. Of course, the situation is not as dire as it was at Moscow State University, where freshmen-journalists filled up the dictation , but also quite unpleasant. Especially considering that the working tool is like that of journalists. Tongue.
There is no logic, no ability to express thoughts on paper. But there is ambition and "creativity." It is as if this “creativity" is worth something without basic skills ...
What does the education reform have to do with it? And the most direct.
Man writes a text. He, not afraid of the word, produces a product. And, as with any production, external evaluation and social approval matter. If a person writes texts in the same way that AvtoVAZ makes cars, then the maximum that you can trust him is to put stamps on pieces of paper. In this case, the text of the stamp should be prepared by a more competent employee.
Labor assessment is important in any case, under any conditions. And the basis of understanding the assessment is laid by the parents (“what is good and what is bad”), and it develops just in school. In the process of studying. And the assessment fulfills not only the function of education (“I will put a deuce !!!! 111”), but also informs the student about how society evaluates his work. Accordingly, the assessment system should be:
And what is happening at school (and at the university)? In fact, a three-point rating system has been fixed. 3 - “tried to do something”; 4 - “made, but with small errors”; 5 - "made without errors." Who saw the unit last time?
It is clear that in such a situation, an attempt to do something is sufficient. The quality of the attempt, in fact, does not matter. Because, even if the work is done "satisfactorily" (but done) - no social sanctions will follow. And why? And because society is oriented at an average level (purely statistically), and average behavior is not rewarded, but it is not authorized in any way (the domestic auto industry, by the way, is a classic example of satisfactory work). And, we note that in such a system, the middle and lowest levels automatically coincide.
This state of affairs is supported by all sorts of "human-oriented educators" and "systems of developing training." The activity of the child is approved initially. The quality of the activity does not matter.
What's next? And then, as Alice said, “Everything is more wonderful and wonderful.” The system excludes evaluation from itself and begins to support itself already outside the school. And we have fancifully formed areas of knowledge, devoid of even the minimum criteria of truth.
The engineers are pretty obvious - made the wrong calculation - the bridge collapsed, court, Siberia. But what about the philosophers, sociologists, psychologists who give rise to concepts one another more bizarre? In the natural sciences, at least an experiment is needed to pretend to be something. And in the humanitarian? “They don’t even need erasers.” Wrote more than others - a leading theorist. And the quality of the written does not bother anyone.
The story with the "Rooter" is known . But for some reason, it is bashfully silent that this is only the tip of the iceberg. The amount of delirium presented as science has exceeded all limits. As you, for example, such a headline: "The archetype of the dressing gown in Russian literature of the XIX century." We were expelled immediately for such a usage.
In Western social disciplines there is continuity. No new theory denies the previous one. In Russian philosophy, sociology and psychology, any doctoral dissertation begins with a passage like “all old approaches do not work, and only a new - AUTHOR'S - approach can shed light ...”
What is most ridiculous, in the West, social sciences have long come close to natural. No, philosophers write, of course, some texts about “deconstruction” and “postmodernism”. That's why they are philosophers. But, for example, social psychology is an experimental science. Sociology has long existed without mathematical models. And who traditionally goes to these sciences in our country? Those who did not like mathematics at the university.
Only physicists from the Commission on the fight against pseudoscience of the Russian Academy of Sciences periodically say that it is time to end raving. Who else would listen to them, Nobel laureates ... They can only work, what can they do ...
What did I encounter?
To begin with, students completely lost the ability to clearly present their thoughts on paper. No, thank God, they have not forgotten how to add letters to words. But as you move from words to sentences, paragraphs and the whole text, the meaning dissolves. That is, you can understand what the paragraph is about. But to understand what the whole text is about is virtually impossible.
At the same time, the authors of the works sincerely believe that they wrote texts full of deep meaning, “creative” (where did they manage to learn this word?). At the same time, the authors themselves cannot explain the main line of their opus. Of course, the situation is not as dire as it was at Moscow State University, where freshmen-journalists filled up the dictation , but also quite unpleasant. Especially considering that the working tool is like that of journalists. Tongue.
There is no logic, no ability to express thoughts on paper. But there is ambition and "creativity." It is as if this “creativity" is worth something without basic skills ...
What does the education reform have to do with it? And the most direct.
Man writes a text. He, not afraid of the word, produces a product. And, as with any production, external evaluation and social approval matter. If a person writes texts in the same way that AvtoVAZ makes cars, then the maximum that you can trust him is to put stamps on pieces of paper. In this case, the text of the stamp should be prepared by a more competent employee.
Labor assessment is important in any case, under any conditions. And the basis of understanding the assessment is laid by the parents (“what is good and what is bad”), and it develops just in school. In the process of studying. And the assessment fulfills not only the function of education (“I will put a deuce !!!! 111”), but also informs the student about how society evaluates his work. Accordingly, the assessment system should be:
- Accessible to understanding (“why is it 59 points, but I am 58?”)
- Accurate enough to differentiate students
And what is happening at school (and at the university)? In fact, a three-point rating system has been fixed. 3 - “tried to do something”; 4 - “made, but with small errors”; 5 - "made without errors." Who saw the unit last time?
It is clear that in such a situation, an attempt to do something is sufficient. The quality of the attempt, in fact, does not matter. Because, even if the work is done "satisfactorily" (but done) - no social sanctions will follow. And why? And because society is oriented at an average level (purely statistically), and average behavior is not rewarded, but it is not authorized in any way (the domestic auto industry, by the way, is a classic example of satisfactory work). And, we note that in such a system, the middle and lowest levels automatically coincide.
This state of affairs is supported by all sorts of "human-oriented educators" and "systems of developing training." The activity of the child is approved initially. The quality of the activity does not matter.
What's next? And then, as Alice said, “Everything is more wonderful and wonderful.” The system excludes evaluation from itself and begins to support itself already outside the school. And we have fancifully formed areas of knowledge, devoid of even the minimum criteria of truth.
The engineers are pretty obvious - made the wrong calculation - the bridge collapsed, court, Siberia. But what about the philosophers, sociologists, psychologists who give rise to concepts one another more bizarre? In the natural sciences, at least an experiment is needed to pretend to be something. And in the humanitarian? “They don’t even need erasers.” Wrote more than others - a leading theorist. And the quality of the written does not bother anyone.
The story with the "Rooter" is known . But for some reason, it is bashfully silent that this is only the tip of the iceberg. The amount of delirium presented as science has exceeded all limits. As you, for example, such a headline: "The archetype of the dressing gown in Russian literature of the XIX century." We were expelled immediately for such a usage.
In Western social disciplines there is continuity. No new theory denies the previous one. In Russian philosophy, sociology and psychology, any doctoral dissertation begins with a passage like “all old approaches do not work, and only a new - AUTHOR'S - approach can shed light ...”
What is most ridiculous, in the West, social sciences have long come close to natural. No, philosophers write, of course, some texts about “deconstruction” and “postmodernism”. That's why they are philosophers. But, for example, social psychology is an experimental science. Sociology has long existed without mathematical models. And who traditionally goes to these sciences in our country? Those who did not like mathematics at the university.
Only physicists from the Commission on the fight against pseudoscience of the Russian Academy of Sciences periodically say that it is time to end raving. Who else would listen to them, Nobel laureates ... They can only work, what can they do ...