In defence of Good Education

There have been a few things that I've wanted to blog about since I last opened this site... but I always seem to get distracted, and then justify my distraction by telling myself to think about it for a while before blogging so my argument is more convincing. Unfortunately, as you might guess, I tend to forget what I was going to write about.

But one thing that sparked in me the urge to put fingers to keyboard (which is connected to a computer, connected to the internet and accessing blogger... gee that catchphrase is a bit longer than pen to paper...) is Dan Brown's YouTube video "An Open Letter To Educators" (see it here).

In this video Dan argues that education systems need to evolve past the point where they are now in order to retain their importance in society. This isn't because us Generation-Y-ers can't be bothered to sit in a classroom for more than 5 minutes when we aren't obliged to by law, but because the nature of information has changed drastically since the educational institution was designed.

In the past knowledge and information were valuable things. Starting way back when the only people with access to total information were the kings and his advisors, then moving forward to most aristocracy, and then to a broader class of the wealthy. If you wanted information you had to either be born into a position that granted you access to it, or have the capital to purchase it. Now I won't get into the whole concept of capital and knowledge and power as espoused by the likes of Foucault and Bourdieu, but you get the general idea. If you did not have the power (through whatever means) to access knowledge, you could not have it.

Now knowledge is virtually free. All you need is access to the internet, and you can find out anything. Sure, there are very small pockets of information that have yet to be uploaded to the internet, but for all intents and purposes, anything and everything is accessible for no cost on the internet.

"So why then do we persist in making people pay to learn facts, when they are so freely available?" is the question that Dan Brown basically asks.

I think that he definately has a point. Education institutions do have a habit of believing that the best way to teach their students is to teach them facts, and then test them on their ability to remember those facts. If that is the sole basis for a degree, I would certainly agree that there is not much point in paying for the privelige.

But I do think that there is more to most degrees than just fact-learning. I don't know if it is just because I went to the University that I went to, or that I did a Humanities degree, but to me a degree does much more than just teach you facts. A degree teaches you how to use those facts, talk about those facts, disagree with those facts, and critically analyse them. A degree should teach you how to be a critical problem solver who has the sufficient background knowledge in their area to effectively argue points, make plans, offer theories and succeed in their chosen area of specialty.

I guess a small part of that is memorising facts to the extent that you have to know what has been said and done in a discipline in order to move forward. We can't all discover everything from scratch. But I think that is the unimportant bit. Its like when you learn how to drive - you need to memorise all the basic rules and movements before you can go anywhere exciting... Or you will fail badly or die at worst.

So I think while Dan has a valid point, and many institutions do need to evolve the way that they teach their subjects and treat their students, the value of higher education is not entirely diminished.

Of course I'm biased... I have a Bachelor of Arts, and a First Class Honours Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology, and I am about to start my Graduate Certificate in Criminology and Criminal Justice. If I didn't believe in the education system, then I would certainly not be going back for my third degree, and not piling my HECS debt so high that I don't want to think about it... So I guess I'm somewhat invested in the argument.

But as I've said, Dan makes good points. He is a big ideas person, and I can see how a traditional learning environment would not suit him at all. He is so creative, he could probably design his own educational system and series of degrees to suit him before most of us could decide on which direction to take our lives after school... But I just had to argue the point from another perspective.




In life news, my sister turned 21! It was a pretty fun triad of happenings. First I went to the parent's place for dinner on the eve of her birthday. We had lasagne and wine and cake - a good night in my books. Then we went out on the town on the Saturday after her birthday and had a good time. Naturally I didn't last very long into the night as I'm a nana... and Nannal, in the middle of having an asthma attack, crashed my car into a pole that night. ... but overall it was a good night. And then finally we had the family dinner on the 20th at my parents' place. We invited all of the aunts and uncles and grandparentals and cousins... but who turned up? Mum and Dad and Teeni, of course. And Me and Nannal. And then just my Aunty Ce and Uncle Roly with their eldest Megan and her boyfriend Pat. That's right, out of all my parents siblings, their partners and children (that is 2 aunts 2 uncles all with partners and most with kids) only one sibling could be bothered to come. One didn't even reply that they weren't coming. They just didn't come...

Oh well, all the more for us I say.

Oh and I started Weight Watchers with a friend from work. Its actually pretty great. The first week I lost 2.7 kilograms, which was very encouraging. I'm not sure about this week, since I went over my points quite significantly on the weekend... damn birthday dinners! But I'm sure it will be ok.

Right this entry is quite long enough!


Aufwiedersehen!

Community Online

Slack slack slack I have been. But really, when all you do all day is a variation on surfing the web, trying to find a job, cleaning, cooking (watching too much masterchef) and watching TV/DVDs, what is there to blog about?

I guess with my increased viewing of the News I could comment on the big stories, like the Iranian elections, the Air France disaster, and the horrible things happening in many parts of the world, but really, I don't think what I have to offer could contribute very much since my understanding of the situation is based mostly on snippets seen on biased news stations.

However, I have made a decision. I will blog at least once a week. I will even try to blog about something interesting. I know... bold move.

So for the first attempt at something interesting, here is my take on:

Community Online

This is a topic I could talk your ear off about. It is a major point in studying the Internet from an Anthropological perspective, as well as generally interesting for any one who regularly uses the web.

For me I find the concept of community online at once both attractive and confusing. When you are part of an online community, there is no doubt that there really is a sense of community. However when you are not part of an online community there is a sense of disbelief that such a sense could occur.

For example, I was part of an online community of viewers/participants in the LonelyGirl15 phenomenon. I actually came to it fairly late, but was around for the last 2 seasons. In watching regularly, and being an active part of the forums, it was easy to identify myself as part of the community. We solved problems together, we knew eachother's names. We knew eachother's quirks and biases. However it took intensive involvement to feel like a real part of this community of fans.

On the other hand, nowadays twitter is becoming massive. A lot of people talk about the ways that twitter is interactive and social, but for me, as someone who follows many people, but only has advertisers following me (I guess they think that I will be so grateful that someone cares that I'll buy their product...), twitter is more like television, or news headlines. I am updated constantly on what people are doing. I can reply to what people are doing, but I never hear anything back. It is entirely one way for me. It isn't that way for everyone though... for example several of the people I follow are friends (online and off) who tweet, retweet and reply to eachother. They sometimes have entire conversations via twitter. But for someone who is really only following because I am a fan of these people and the creative work, I am not really a part of the community.

The begs the question - what is community?

Oh and what a question. Anthropology has tried to answer this question so many times, and before the internet community usually suggested vague links to do with common interest, and common geography. For example I live in the Barossa Valley and people talk frequently about the community here.

With those vague guidelines I guess community online makes sense. Common interest is obvious - you can be part of a community on YouTube that vlogs about certain things, or a group online in favour of something, part of a fandom etc. Common geography in a less traditional sense makes sense as well. While we are definately not all in the same physical location, we generally converge on particular sites. For example there are You Tube communities, LonelyGirl15.com, Harry Potter fans at leaky-cauldron.org, or mugglenet.com. Groups of people with common interests often form their own sites with forums that they can interact on and discuss the topic or topics that bind them.

But with online communities, more so (I think) than offline communities, there is a heavier emphasis on participation. While I am part of the Barossa community, I don't really do anything. I shop in the Barossa and I live here, but I don't participate in community events really. Whereas online I would not count myself as part of a community unless I was involved. I would have to at least join the site, at least read some forums or articles etc., in order to feel that I was part of a community, and in order for others to feel that I was too.

I guess with online communities that emphasis on participation is needed because unless you participate, no one actually knows you exist. In the Barossa community I am counted in because I live in the Barossa. I have an address in the Barossa and people (if they look hard enough) know where I am. Online if I just lurk, so to speak, no one knows I exist, and I can't be a part of a community if I effectively don't exist to the other members.

So I guess that is the sticking point... Interaction. Involvement. Interest. Ooooh. Three I's... isn't that convenient?

More analysis would be easier if I actually made an effort to research the specific ways that people define community in anthropological texts and elsewhere, but I feel that most people don't go on definitions that theorists have made over the last 100 years. Most people do what I do, and define them based on their experiences. "When is the word community most used in the context of my life?" is a more useful question than "What does the Oxford Student's Dictionary (now with colour!) say about community?" or "What did that man 40 years ago say about community?".


Aaaanyway. That went on for a lot longer than I planned. But at least I can say I've done something this morning. ^.^

xo

Online "friends" ...

I feel like I've blogged about this before...

Nonetheless!

Online "friendships".

I was thinking the other day that it is a very strange phenomenon that occurs between a "fan" of someone online and that person. For example, I was trying to tell my mother about Kristina Horner from youtube/the parselmouths/italktosnakes blog, and I found myself wanting to say "my friend Kristina". Although that is not strictly true.

She actually only vaguely knows of my existence. And mostly that knowledge just places me as an anonymous number in her "subscribers" or "listeners" or "readers". But if this were offline, I am fairly sure that anyone who paid this much attention to what she had to say, and appreciated her creative outlets as much as I do (and the rest of the subscribers... I'm not the only one!), would probably be classed as a friend.

But because it is online its different. It is like a one-way friendship. I would kind of like to have a conversation with her - and anyone else that I watch/read - but I know it would be wierd because I would be at an advantage. I already know a lot about her and her life. But she would know practically nothing about me and my life. So it would be awkward probably. Or maybe I'm too selfconscious about that fact?

I think it would be similar to meeting a celebrity for the first time. Like I would really love to meet and talk to Amanda Palmer. She is my favourite artist of all time. I love her music. I love her blog. And I really admire her commitment to both music and creativity in general. She is a wonderful person. Yet if I were given the opportunity to sit down with her backstage I would feel really uncomfortable blurting out all these things because she does not know me! Sure I could think of some interesting questions to ask her and start a conversation but it is still wierd because she is the one that I know all about, and I am just fan number xy.

Anyways... Just thought I'd blog that. Its a thought that has been running around in my head for a while. :-)