Half-hearted studies, Half-hearted jobs?

[William White]

I really hate to say it again but (again) it's our education system fault. School (and you spend most of your time there) doesn't allow young people to develop as a human being. Instead schooling is more like animal traning. You get that check list all the time - "do x, y and z to get A grade", "learn x, y, z in order to pass the test". No additional material, no surprises, no tricky questions like it was when my parents were going to school, just the checklist. You follow the checklist and -bang- magic happenes and you succeed on test. It's almost like conditioned response - whatever you do, you look at checklist so that you can do that "properly" - no additional work or mistakes allowed. You are an idiot? You lack nessesary knowledge? No problem. You can do this too. Everyone can be winners so we can be politically correct and don't need to take an effort to treat people individually. <- that's how it works

this is not the problem of schools, it is the problem of universities and employers

The vast number of kids entering the job market or further education system every year, means that employers or admissions staff, by necessity use grades as a first filter.

Want to go to a Russel Group University? you need to get A* A A...at A level

So the schools, wanting to do the best for their pupils, push them down a narrow corridor to get those grades.

Would it be better to have a broader education, where somebody with more moderate grades but a much wider sense of being, and much wider general knowledge, and better life skills was the goal? Absolutely.

Maybe it is going to change, because the nerds that are hitting straight As and getting first class degrees are not always well rounded , intelligent people. Often quite the opposite, and this is really noticable in the workplace. There are kids with straight As that get them at the expense of a rounded education, and a rounded general intelligence.

Many city firms are now taking on kids on advanced apprenticeship schemes, where you can get in with C grades after a successful interview; and after several years work, you are in a managerial position with a degree (studied at work); but more importantly, a lot of life skills. This requires effort on the part of the employer, to be able to see the potential in a young person (somebody, who has not even stopped growing, mentally and physically))

 

[Vanadium 50]

Good culture is basically a checklist.

Do you think following a checklist is all it takes get one a successful career?

 

[atyy]

Do you think following a checklist is all it takes get one a successful career?

Well, if one uses words like "all it takes" seriously, then that is not a real argument, since no one believes that. The question is whether the underlying idea is more or less a good one. Especially to point is - even if it is in fact less true, whether society would not be better if it more true. Do you think a society in which success were more or less guaranteed would be bad in some "moral" sense? (I am trying to understand your use of the word "insidious" .)

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

Your argument is not an argument against checklists, but rather the checklist you used might not have been very good.

When you find perfection in a checklist, in a curriculum, in a standard, or in a policy, I will change my thinking. One should always think past the bureaucratic aspects of what society sets up, and think about what the goal is and what else may be at risk. The checklist is nothing but a starting point.

 

[atyy]

When you find perfection in a checklist, in a curriculum, in a standard, or in a policy, I will change my thinking. One should always think past the bureaucratic aspects of what society sets up, and think about what the goal is and what else may be at risk. The checklist is nothing but a starting point.

Yes, but I think one should not downplay the usefulness of a good checklist, and also how a good checklist should ensure one doesn't end up in a situation that is not on the checklist. To highlight the tension between the two poles, I would refer to your earlier post in which you praised the idea of long-term planning. Actually, I quite liked the spirit of that post in which you said:

"Water utility infrastructure is so expensive and disruptive to build, that it has to be designed for the ages. The mindset that we're designing, building, and maintaining infrastructure that is expected to last for a century or more is alien to many younger workers. One does not usually get this mindset from temporary or contract workers. People who think this way are found among those with a long term investment in the community: In other words: those with families and extended family, who own property in the area. Not many recent college graduates fall into that category.

That is why the utility offers stable, long term employment with a full pension plan. They invest in their employees and they then expect the employees to stay with the company and help maintain an institutional memory of what works and what didn't. It is indeed unusual these days where most businesses do not look ahead more than five years into the future."

The tension (between the idea that checklisting is good and the idea that checklisting is bad) comes when one sees checklisting and planning as synonyms. If we are to make good long-term plans, we must be able to rely on plans or checklists to a large extent.

 

[Choppy]

The only problem with that line of thinking is that the knowledge required to do any of (i)-(iii) require a fundamental understanding of the basic sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) which isn't immediately practical, or even appear to be practical. Much of the technology we have today is a direct or indirect result of the massive amount of funding that governments and others have contributed to basic research.

I agree completely.

But the point of the exercise isn't what's to identify what is or is not important to society. It's to help students identify the challenges that they will encounter for any given course of study that they choose, and potentially begin to think about how they might overcome those challenges.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

The tension (between the idea that checklisting is good and the idea that checklisting is bad) comes when one sees checklisting and planning as synonyms. If we are to make good long-term plans, we must be able to rely on plans or checklists to a large extent.

The problem with checklists is not that they're bad, but that they're insufficient. Following checklists is no substitute for critical thinking and situational awareness.

I keep hearing that colleges are supposed to teach critical thinking, if not situational awareness, but from what I've seen, and from my own personal experience, I have to wonder what they think they're doing to foster such questions and awareness. I have not seen evidence that supports this contention.

 

[atyy]

The problem with checklists is not that they're bad, but that they're insufficient. Following checklists is no substitute for critical thinking and situational awareness.

I keep hearing that colleges are supposed to teach critical thinking, if not situational awareness, but from what I've seen, and from my own personal experience, I have to wonder what they think they're doing to foster such questions and awareness. I have not seen evidence that supports this contention.

But why don't you consider the critical thinking and situational awareness part of the checklist, especially to the extent that these can be taught? Going off topic a bit, but back to your analogy of an aircraft emergency - I don't actually have experience in that specific arena, but I do know that in many disasters, preparedness is key - which means disaster planning and situation gaming - these are both forms of checklists. When one has a disaster that is off the scale, then one no longer has a checklist. But in that case I am not convinced that what is ascribed to situational awareness or critical thinking is key, it could be more luck. The same person who survived due to "situational awareness" in an off scale disaster may not survive again in the identical situation without training, and we try to incorporate the insights from these lucky experiences into future checklists.

 

[symbolipoint]

The problem with checklists is not that they're bad, but that they're insufficient. Following checklists is no substitute for critical thinking and situational awareness.

I keep hearing that colleges are supposed to teach critical thinking, if not situational awareness, but from what I've seen, and from my own personal experience, I have to wonder what they think they're doing to foster such questions and awareness. I have not seen evidence that supports this contention.

Check-list? This is how one would begin to choose courses for earning a degree. Counseling and advice is also very useful for most students. You can start with a checklist to find which courses one needs for a degree, but then one needs to PLAN more thoroughly to decide which electives would be best, and this depends on what the student wants to be able to do once he graduates. This is how the check-list might allow a student to just do the minimum to be able to graduate; and then be short on experiences and other useful education, leading such a student to be too less-competetive when he graduates.

 

[symbolipoint]

But why don't you consider the critical thinking and situational awareness part of the checklist, especially to the extent that these can be taught? Going off topic a bit, but back to your analogy of an aircraft emergency - I don't actually have experience in that specific arena, but I do know that in many disasters, preparedness is key - which means disaster planning and situation gaming - these are both forms of checklists. When one has a disaster that is off the scale, then one no longer has a checklist. But in that case I am not convinced that what is ascribed to situational awareness or critical thinking is key, it could be more luck. The same person who survived due to "situational awareness" in an off scale disaster may not survive again in the identical situation without training, and we try to incorporate the insights from these lucky experiences into future checklists.

You say here, in other words, when bad things happen, the checklist must be intelligently adjusted.

 

[atyy]

You say here, in other words, when bad things happen, the checklist must be intelligently adjusted.

Yes. But I also wanted to stress that good outcomes in "normal bad" situations do require planning and gaming. For example, in the deaths of firefighters in forest fires, do we blame the deaths on the dead for lack of situational awareness and critical thinking, or do we say, let's go back and look at our checklists and see how we can improve them?

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

But why don't you consider the critical thinking and situational awareness part of the checklist, especially to the extent that these can be taught?

But seriously, how does one teach critical thinking? The only way I can see it happening is by example. Perhaps by teaching rhetoric and fallacious arguments? How many STEM students ever take a course in Rhetoric?

but then one needs to PLAN more thoroughly to decide which electives would be best, and this depends on what the student wants to be able to do once he graduates

These are the exact things that appear to be missing. The planning and the critical thinking. Instead, the student follows the checklist blindly, graduates... and then wonder what they're supposed to do next.

 

[atyy]

But seriously, how does one teach critical thinking? The only way I can see it happening is by example. Perhaps by teaching rhetoric and fallacious arguments? How many STEM students ever take a course in Rhetoric?

These are the exact things that appear to be missing. The planning and the critical thinking. Instead, the student follows the checklist blindly, graduates... and then wonder what they're supposed to do next.

Teaching critical thinking is hard, and I for the most part am not qualified to comment, since I like to follow checklists :P

But actually, here you use "planning" as something deeper than "checklisting", whereas I would say planning and checklisting are really the same. "Planning" is the less loaded term, and "checklisting" the more loaded one. An example of a good way of improving a checklist that I think the three of us liked was symbolipoint's post in which he said "More effort to PROMOTE internships could help. Designing and then pushing for independent project assignments for some courses also helps." There what is being done is adding internships to the checklist.

 

[issam84]

Some people just study to get a job and only those think about how much money they would make (those ppl get confused), some others seek a career on doing something they love and would not care much about money (those already know what they want).

 

[utkarsh pande]

Hello guys.

I am new to this forum but share the same passion for physics as you guys and I used to be good at it. But after doing great physics, I opted for engineering and have spend 10 years in various software,finance, entrepreneurship and product management jobs, all of which now I realize have been a waste of my time and energy. Is there a way back to physics? I shall be deeply indebted to anyone who can shed some light on this.

regards
harshu

 

[StatGuy2000]

But seriously, how does one teach critical thinking? The only way I can see it happening is by example. Perhaps by teaching rhetoric and fallacious arguments? How many STEM students ever take a course in Rhetoric?
These are the exact things that appear to be missing. The planning and the critical thinking. Instead, the student follows the checklist blindly, graduates... and then wonder what they're supposed to do next.

Perhaps one can argue that "critical thinking" as you are thinking of it cannot be effectively taught in any educational factor. Because essentially "critical thinking" involves the ability to question assumptions, and this can only be taught in an environment or culture that fosters such questioning. I can readily imagine that people who grow up in collectivist, highly conformist cultures, or cultures where religious observance is particularly strong, will have an especially difficult time in developing critical thinking skills (please note that I am not aware of any specific sociological study indicating whether this is true or not, so this is nothing more than my speculation).

 

[StatGuy2000]

By offering an alternative approach and proving that it works! Throughout this whole thread, people have repeatedly criticized various naive attitudes of students and tried to nail their causes, yet none offered any constructive alternative to those attitudes. A student must have some definite (even if somewhat vague) approach to his education and career that he can follow. Saying to an incoming freshman "study what you will, you may still get trashed in the end and struggle to find a job and you can't do anything about it" will achieve nothing but scare him. So, if we are to criticize this approach and wish to retire it, we must offer a good alternative.

EDIT: The checklist approach does offer a definite path through this system. Sure, it may not prevent difficulties upon graduation just like in your example, it may not prevent problems during the flight. But, given the limited effect a student can have on the market (or the pilot on the weather), it may constitute the best effort a student can make to minimize potential difficulties. (Or it may not be the best, then we need to expand the approach or offer an alternative that does a better job at this).

I would argue that in fact that good alternatives simply do not exist. I think we need to recognize that in life, there are no guarantees, and that students who pursue an education will always be at the vagaries of chance and will always face a risk that they will struggle to find a job or otherwise sink into poverty and despair, depending on the circumstances of the economy. Steps can be taken to mitigate that risk to a certain extent (being aware of options that are out there), but that risk will never disappear.

I think we need to understand and recognize that there are factors in life that are beyond our control, and that a certain percentage of people are guaranteed to fail, whether it is due to their own actions or lack of action. Success is never a guarantee. Should you worry? Yes, you should worry to the extent that you have control over events.

Perhaps my sentiments above may come across as overly pessimistic, but I would argue that what I've stated is cold, hard realism.

 

[ELB27]

I would argue (and I'm not sure the various PF forums will say otherwise) that in fact that good alternatives simply do not exist. I think we need to recognize that in life, there are no guarantees, and that students who pursue an education will always be at the vagaries of chance and will always face a risk that they will struggle to find a job, depending on the circumstances of the economy.

And yet this risk depends on the particular career path you choose and can be to a limited extent predicted. That's what planning is for. The checklist on the other hand is an efficient way to organize and execute those plans. Sure, to be truly successful, this checklist must be continuously examined and, if necessary, altered to better suit the changing reality, but it still should exist.

I think we need to understand and recognize that there are factors in life that are beyond our control, and that a certain percentage of people are guaranteed to fail, whether it is due to their own actions or inactions.

If you were, say, an incoming freshman considering the various choices before you, would you take such a thought into account? Would you be able to "accept" that you may be "destined" to fail regardless of your choice? Or would you rather follow some plan that will at least give you an opportunity to advance?

 

[StatGuy2000]

And yet this risk depends on the particular career path you choose and can be to a limited extent predicted. That's what planning is for. The checklist on the other hand is an efficient way to organize and execute those plans. Sure, to be truly successful, this checklist must be continuously examined and, if necessary, altered to better suit the changing reality, but it still should exist.

First of all, I agree with you at all that planning and the use of a checklist is useful (in various other threads), I have advocated for careful thought and planning to specifically mitigate the risks and increase the overall chance of success (this would include improving one's spoken communication skills, develop programming skills for people in specific technical disciplines, work on improving resume writing, networking, etc.) I also agree that that these checklists or plans need to be continuously examined and altered with changing realities. What I am arguing is that checklists or plans do not completely mitigate the risk of struggles.

If you were, say, an incoming freshman considering the various choices before you, would you take such a thought into account? Would you be able to "accept" that you may be "destined" to fail regardless of your choice? Or would you rather follow some plan that will at least give you an opportunity to advance?

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I have never accepted, nor have I ever stated, that anyone is destined for failure regardless of their choice. When I state that certain percentage of people are guaranteed to fail, I was speaking in a "macro" sense of an entire population. I wasn't speaking about an individual person or even a specific group of people.

If you take a look at the entire college/university student population of the US (as an example), you will find that there is a certain percentage of these that either (a) do not graduate, (b) struggle to find work after graduation, or (c) struggle to find work commensurate with their education. That percentage may be small, but it is non-zero. That is a fact.

I do not feel anyone is destined or pre-destined for anything. Chance and random factors will have an impact on the trajectory of our lives, but so do the choices we make. And yes, following a well-thought out plan is crucial to give an opportunity for advancement.

 

[atyy]

Some historical questions related to the OP:

How much of what is anecdotally described in the OP is due to the economic downturn around 2008, when I think most would agree that the problem was more due to "the system", rather than to individuals lacking a reasonable plan (though I would welcome debate on that too)?

Will things change now that the economy has improved, at least in the US, to the point where there is talk of the Fed raising interest rates?

But I presume the new emphasis on internships will not go away soon.

Do things differ by country?

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

here you use "planning" as something deeper than "checklisting", whereas I would say planning and checklisting are really the same.

You're quite right. I use the term planning to refer to specific plans of direction toward some positive goal. Checklists are developed from the experience of others to keep you from making mistakes that many before you have made. They are two sides of the same coin, though one is goal oriented, and the other is to help keep you out of trouble.

That said, schools have been under a great deal of pressure to teach in checklist fashion so that students learn certain skills at certain stages. So far, that's good. But it doesn't impart a sense of direction to them. I'm not even certain that the sense of direction is something the students should get from a school.

So if that sense of direction doesn't come from a school, should it come from family? A religious institution? Hobbies? Mentors? Where do people get their ideas from, and what can we do to ensure that most students do in fact have a goal of some sort?

 

[Rika]

Do things differ by country?

No.

Will things change now that the economy has improved, at least in the US, to the point where there is talk of the Fed raising interest rates?

It's only my opinion but I don't think so. It's not like there was a crisis but now it's gone and everything will be all right. Whole economy is changing. Going back to what was before is impossible. It has always been "survival of the fittest" game. If you can't fit you are out. The problem is people who were kept in glass bubbles their whole life can't adjust to changes. Changes means checklist that worked before, doesn't work now.

So if that sense of direction doesn't come from a school, should it come from family? A religious institution? Hobbies? Mentors? Where do people get their ideas from, and what can we do to ensure that most students do in fact have a goal of some sort?

I'll ask different question - why did you grow up in different world? Why did you have a goal and knew what to do? I don't know a better word so let's say "system" wasn't ideal but it's broken now. Why is it broken? Why it wasn't when you grew up?

 

[StatGuy2000]

No.
It's only my opinion but I don't think so. It's not like there was a crisis but now it's gone and everything will be all right. Whole economy is changing. Going back to what was before is impossible. It has always been "survival of the fittest" game. If you can't fit you are out. The problem is people who were kept in glass bubbles their whole life can't adjust to changes. Changes means checklist that worked before, doesn't work now.
I'll ask different question - why did you grow up in different world? Why did you have a goal and knew what to do? I don't know a better word so let's say "system" wasn't ideal but it's broken now. Why is it broken? Why it wasn't when you grew up?

So you are essentially saying that a certain percentage of people are essentially guaranteed to fail and struggle with life, is that right?

 

[Wade3]

I can honestly tell you what gave me my direction, and I think it could be applicable to all people. I am a mechanical drafter, trained at a 4 semester tech school. I had gone to college for 2 years studying liberal arts, but was forced to leave after making little commitment to a field of study (sociology). I would, however not take back the education I did get there even though I have about 18 thousand left to pay off from it. It gave a good sense of world history and perspective, which helped lead me to my real answer. After leaving college, and having as a main preoccupation social progress and alternative economies, I then came back to a documentary I had seen during high school, the Zeitgeist series, which brings one's mind to ponder the real meaning of human civilization. It was that which gave me the reference I needed to conclude that mechanical drafting is a basic tool for fulfilling the purpose of human life, which is to improve the world for the sake of the species and the future. I also toyed with the idea of going into the heating and refrigeration program at that school, because of how that knowledge can be used to affect the cost of living, which I see as affecting unemployment and the ability of society to support workers, leading to better conditions.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

I'll ask different question - why did you grow up in different world? Why did you have a goal and knew what to do? I don't know a better word so let's say "system" wasn't ideal but it's broken now. Why is it broken? Why it wasn't when you grew up?

I knew it from the start. I can't explain it. School was a means to that end.

It was practically biological for me. For as long as I can remember (age 5) I have been fascinated by radios. They still fascinate me today, and I know an awful lot more about them than I did as a child. I got into ham radio. I studied electronics and extra math because I knew I'd need that to continue along that route. I got into electrical engineering, knowing that I wanted to do something with radios and telecommunications. I was into engineering too. My brothers and I used to build cars out of Lego and crash them. The winners were the ones that lost the fewest pieces. We'd make paper airplanes and see whose flew the furthest or the longest. We'd build rockets with payloads of various insects to see how well they endured the ride (not very well, unfortunately).

I naturally gravitated toward this because I couldn't imagine doing anything else. I was usually ahead of what they taught in schools, so I merely tried to get the assignments done so that teachers would think they'd taught me something. While I did learn a few things in college, most of what I learned came through my own study. I've always had a jaundiced eye toward the educational establishment because, at least for me, it was often just a damned a rubber stamp that someone else agreed that I already knew what I needed to know.

I know, that's a arrogant way of looking at it. However, I already knew many of the things they were supposed to "teach" me before I ever set foot in the classroom. I knew it because I was already very interested and I had studied it on my own, or I didn't give a damn and then I'd get fairly ordinary grades.

So I'm genuinely puzzled as to how this empty mindset, almost bereft of any goal, happens so often. I'm probably the anomaly and they're probably the normal ones. But that said, I'm not sure how to instill a goal in these students, to light the fires of curiosity and enthusiasm, so as to encourage them to set goals for themselves. That's ultimately the reason for this thread.

 

[donpacino]

I know, that's a arrogant way of looking at it. However, I already knew many of the things they were supposed to "teach" me before I ever set foot in the classroom. I knew it because I was already very interested and I had studied it on my own, or I didn't give a damn and then I'd get fairly ordinary grades.

So I'm genuinely puzzled as to how this empty mindset, almost bereft of any goal, happens so often. I'm probably the anomaly and they're probably the normal ones. But that said, I'm not sure how to instill a goal in these students, to light the fires of curiosity and enthusiasm, so as to encourage them to set goals for themselves. That's ultimately the reason for this thread.

One problem is that not everyone will be entirely interested by what can currently make money as a job. Many people are interested in music, dance, travel, food, etc. You're lucky you have a great interest in electronics and you're good at it. Many people do not have that privilege. If someone is good enough to be an engineer, but their true passion lies in pottery, it might be hard to really set a goal and convince the student to do anything more than what is required to get a well paying job.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

One problem is that not everyone will be entirely interested by what can currently make money as a job. Many people are interested in music, dance, travel, food, etc. You're lucky you have a great interest in electronics and you're good at it. Many people do not have that privilege. If someone is good enough to be an engineer, but their true passion lies in pottery, it might be hard to really set a goal and convince the student to do anything more than what is required to get a well paying job.

Yes, I approach many things with the eye of an engineer. But I have also seen people approach things with the view as a financier, an entrepreneur, a politician, a lawyer, a salesman, an artist, or even as a heavy construction operator... My point is that I got excited about SOMETHING. Any of these things can make a living. Why is it that some people drift from place to place and yet others pursue their interests with gusto?

 

[Rika]

So you are essentially saying that a certain percentage of people are essentially guaranteed to fail and struggle with life, is that right?

No. It's not about "a certain percentage of people". What I'm saying - if you don't have nessesary skills you will fail. If you don't master A-level math, you won't be able to pass very first test of math/physics degree. But it doesn't mean you are going to fail for eternity. If you learn A-level math you can move forward.

So yeah - people who don't have nessesary "life skills" are essentially guaranteed to fail and struggle with life but it doesn't mean they can't change it and it's not a miniority. I would say majority will struggle because young people aren't prepared to face reality.

Yes, I approach many things with the eye of an engineer. But I have also seen people approach things with the view as a financier, an entrepreneur, a politician, a lawyer, a salesman, an artist, or even as a heavy construction operator... My point is that I got excited about SOMETHING. Any of these things can make a living. Why is it that some people drift from place to place and yet others pursue their interests with gusto?

I had several hobbies and for a long time I couldn't choose just one. I needed to experience much more in order to choose. On the other hand I was discouraged to pursue hobbies that wasn't "marketable" even if in fact they were. For example you can make good living as graphic designer, vfx artist, industrial designer, illustrator, tatooist and so on and if you work hard=have strong portfolio you will get a job. But I was told by my parents that doing art is bad. It's true that if you want to be gallery artist it's hard and there are tons of people who go to art school with strange expectations. They don't work hard, don't have a goal so they fail. Those who work hard with or without art school usually don't.
On the other hand making your living as a writer is 10 times harder that as artist. I needed experience to learn that. But writing is still easier than academia and in my country it's as hard as some engineering since we don't have great industry here. And yet I was pushed to do engineering :D

So you see - many young people prefer to do nothing because they are discouraged or they drift because they don't like to fail and make an effort or like me they didn't have proper guidance.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/at-a-loss-existential-crisis.831183/ - excellent example of what we are talking about. See how retarded is that?

 

[donpacino]

Yes, I approach many things with the eye of an engineer. But I have also seen people approach things with the view as a financier, an entrepreneur, a politician, a lawyer, a salesman, an artist, or even as a heavy construction operator... My point is that I got excited about SOMETHING. Any of these things can make a living. Why is it that some people drift from place to place and yet others pursue their interests with gusto?

many people drift because they plain don't know what to do. Whatever they enjoy doing (if they even know what it is) does not pay the bills or allow them to 100% live the life they want. So they are forced to compromise.

 

[votingmachine]

There was a time when college was a basic filter. Professional jobs hired college graduates and trained them for the job. College graduation indicated a reasonable level of self-organizational skills and reasonable smarts. That filter effect was valuable, but everyone wants the end result of passing thru the filter, and getting a good job.

There is nothing wrong with wanting a job that pays well. I know many people who quite happily chose to enter a field that paid 6-figures, and are quite happy working, and then enjoying the lifestyle they can afford.

It is difficult to point to the top-10 paying jobs with any assurance. But if you have insight into job demand, and possible financial reward opportunities, tell that to the people that ask ... again, there is nothing wrong with having a job that pays well.

I think that students would like it if College was still just that basic filter, and industries recruited all the college graduates for management and professional jobs. Now students feel they need a second degree, or a third degree, or a post-doc, or etc. There is a rat race going on in education. Everyone wants to get a good job, and live a nice life, but those opportunities are getting scarce.

Doing what you love is not necessarily the best advice. I love to ski, and play guitar. I can do both as hobbies. I agree that building one's own business is neglected as a path.

 

[jasonRF]

But seriously, how does one teach critical thinking? The only way I can see it happening is by example. Perhaps by teaching rhetoric and fallacious arguments? How many STEM students ever take a course in Rhetoric?
These are the exact things that appear to be missing. The planning and the critical thinking. Instead, the student follows the checklist blindly, graduates... and then wonder what they're supposed to do next.

I never learned rhetoric, but college classes in social science were all about critical thinking. This was a shock to me as an incoming freshman engineering student with a relatively poor high school background. I knew I was in trouble when the history class I took first semester had ten (!) books we had to purchase. Reading books by Nietzsche, Freud, etc., criticizing the logic of their arguments to discuss in class, then building our own arguments and cranking out a paper every couple of weeks definitely was a worthwhile, if painful experience. In intro philosophy we learned the different types of arguments, which were valid and why, and then analyzed the arguments from many influential philosophers, and again were required to construct our own logically sound arguments. Part of philosophy involved identifying the premises that were often implied but not explicitly stated. Dissussion sections had us applying these approaches to issues of more immediate concern to college students.

Planning is another thing altogether ... one I cannot claim I have mastered.

jason

 

[symbolipoint]

Rika wrote this in one of his responses:

I'll ask different question - why did you grow up in different world? Why did you have a goal and knew what to do? I don't know a better word so let's say "system" wasn't ideal but it's broken now. Why is it broken? Why it wasn't when you grew up?

Not all parts of a system are broke at the same time. Throughout childhood education we are increasingly lead to believe, "The more Mathematics we can learn and understand, the better"; but those who teach their Mathematics usually cannot be too specific (or they have too little time to).

The younger children are/may be placed as best their school can do, and the smart kids learn their Basic Math and their simple Geometry, while the not-so bright kids learn poorly at best. There may be some tutoring added, either arranged in the school or district, or arranged by the kid's family, or possibly the teacher give extra time(instructive attention to help). Later, the older kids may choose a track voluntarily and use all college prep Math courses for their last years in secondary school - who knows why - maybe because the kids want to go to a university to study something in sciences or engineering. These are usually the more motivated students in high schools and so their effort to learn and understand is higher than the students who try to avoid any extra mathematics.

Even the "not-so-bright" students in the younger grades have a big chance to do much better in Mathematics once they reach high school and go through the college prep Math courses, if they stick to them every year of high school. The sequence of courses by then is better than what they may have found when they were in elementary school.

 

[StatGuy2000]

many people drift because they plain don't know what to do. Whatever they enjoy doing (if they even know what it is) does not pay the bills or allow them to 100% live the life they want. So they are forced to compromise.

I think you raise an interesting point above, but it goes beyond simply compromising. There are some people out there who have a driving passion for a topic/subject/anything, and are driven to pursue that passion. For me, I've had a huge passion for learning just about anything, and I was fortunate to have a family who encouraged that passion. Unfortunately, many people grow up as children in households where such passion are not nurtured (in fact, often times actively discouraged or suppressed). And often times, if interests/passions are not nurtured, it shouldn't be all that surprising that they will drift from one thing or another without finding anything truly worthwhile.

It's also worth noting that often times, it is difficult to develop a passion for something without knowing what options are truly available out there. Let's take me as an example. I started out as a pure math major -- I was always interested in mathematics and I've always assumed I would study either math, or a math-intensive field. I had no knowledge whatsoever about statistics when I started school. It wasn't until my second year in school, when I took some courses in statistics, talked to my TAs about career options in that field, and read more, did I even become aware of statistics as a possible career option. How could I possibly develop a passion for statistics without knowing anything about it?

 

[donpacino]

How could I possibly develop a passion for statistics without knowing anything about it?

I feel that question is at the heart of the JakebrodskyPE's purpose for this thread. How can better expose people to the possibilities! (jake I'm putting words in your mouth so correct me if I am wrong).

as far as the solution to that problem, I'm not sure

 

[StatGuy2000]

I feel that question is at the heart of the JakebrodskyPE's purpose for this thread. How can better expose people to the possibilities! (jake I'm putting words in your mouth so correct me if I am wrong).

as far as the solution to that problem, I'm not sure

I agree, and my reply is that there is a fundamental limit in the ability of secondary schools to inform students about the possibilities out there. The push really has to come from employers or business/trade/professional organizations (like the ASA) to engage in outreach to students, at both the secondary school and college/university level.