I'm of the view that people learn best through independent study, specifically by reading, but this runs contrary to prevailing theories of education, which emphasize the need for student-teacher (or student-student) interaction. This latter school of thought is the source of the obsession with student-teacher ratios and of the increasing use of in-class "activities" in lieu of the traditional lecture. I'd call that fluff, with very little educational value, which serves primarily to justify astronomical and ever-increasing educational costs, driven by over-staffed schools. But the traditional lecture format is also flawed. It's a relic of the medieval period, when - before the advent of the printing press - books were extremely expensive, and so it was economical for a professor to read a book, with or without adding his own commentary, to an audience, contra each student purchasing his own copy. This system was obsolete with the advent of cheaply printed paper books, not to mention the ebook and the internet. If reading is truly the essence of education, there is no need for "classes" at all, and the cost of education can be reduced to virtually nothing.
So, we can think of three categories of education:
1. The traditional, lecture-based class
2. The new age activities-based class
3. Independent study, with no class at all
Which method do you favor?
Vote and comment.
*N.B. I'm proposing the abolition of "class" only for non-hands-on subjects like history or math, contra e.g. spoken languages or lab chemistry
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us