Chapter 1 Quote: "Everyone has huge creative capacities. The challenge is to develop them" (p. 3). I chose this quote because I feel it encapsulates the point Robinson is trying to make in Chapter 1. Children are often highly creative while adults often proclaim they aren't very creative. Ken Robinson argues that adults have plenty of creative potential but schools often suppress creativity in favor of standardization and conformity. Question: I've read that with the continual atomization of everything from manufacturing jobs to self-driving cars, the future will provide far less jobs than there are now. Even with innovation and emerging markets, predictions still show technology will have an adverse effect on the job market. With this in mind, should we expect higher education to lead to job security? This isn't necessarily aligned with Ken Robinson's book, but he is talking about transforming our education system. In the past, education has been preparation for citizenship and the job market. I believe in Robinson's argument that we need to foster and cultivate creativity in schools, but I think we need to consider what effect, if any, we expect this to have on students' career prospects. Connection: In the section titled "Reframing our potential," Robinson describes a story he heard at his son's university in which a professor's son switched majors from Classic Literature to Philosophy and then to Art History. The professor was concerned about his son's potential for job prospects given his choice of major but, as it turned out, the son landed a job at a successful auction house and went on to live quite happily given his chosen career. Robinson points out the the student's choice of majors gave him a perfect knowledge set for his future career which he couldn't have possibly known at the time. This reminds me of a profound story Steve Jobs shared at his commencement speech for 2005 Stanford graduates. Jobs explained that after he dropped out of college, he continued to drop in on classes that interested him, including a calligraphy class. The class seemed to be of little value at the time but when Jobs, with his friend Steve Wozniak, designed the first Apple computer, he was able to put his skills to good use, creating beautiful font types that had never been seen before. The lesson Jobs took away from this story is that you cannot connect the dots looking forward; therefore, you have to trust that some day, the decisions you make now will pay off. The story that Robinson tells seems to be saying the same thing. We shouldn't choose our topic of study because we think it will lead to a good job. We should study what we're passionate about and trust/hope it will lead to the job we wish to someday have. Epiphany: I had an "aha" moment when I read about the disconnect between what skills business leaders want incoming employees to have and the attachment to traditional academic models. Robinson highlights how business leaders claim to want employees who can problem-solve, be creative, and think in an innovative way. However, so many industry leaders still support a 20th century view of education, which is arguably not an ideal model for our 21st century economic landscape. Chapter 2 Quote: "The average digital wristwatch has appreciably more power and memory than the 1969 Apollo Moonlander: the space vehicle from which Neil Armstrong took his small step for man and his giant leap for mankind" (p. 25). This quote exemplifies just how much has changed in the past 50. To put our immense technological progress into perspective, Robinson uses a terrific analogy in which every minute on a clock represents 50 years and thus 60 minutes would add up to 3000 years. He then identifies how many minutes, or seconds, ago a new technological achievement occurred. For example, under this analogy, the first motor car was invented 2.5 minutes ago. The first moon landing and moonwalk happened 50 seconds ago. The World Wide Web was introduced 25 seconds ago. If the last 50 years is any indication of what we should expect in the next 50 years, it's hard to imagine what life will be like in 2066. Question: Throughout the first two chapters, Robinson emphasizes the point that children of today are likely to switch jobs and/or careers multiple times which will have huge impact on the structure of the global economy. 1) What information, specifically, brings Robinson to this conclusion? 2) How many people change jobs or careers nowadays? Connection: Robinson includes a wonderful quote from H.G. Wells: "Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe" (p.47). I've seen this quote before and admittedly didn't give it much thought since I view H.G. Wells as a dramatic science fiction writer. But seeing the quote in this context made me think of climate change and how crucial education is not only to identifying the problem but to accepting the problem and beginning to develop possible solutions. Catastrophe seems to be an independent variable, something that is out of our control. Education is the dependent variable that we can choose to manipulate and can help mitigate the effects of catastrophe. Epiphany: I was struck by this quote: "If you could go back in time and hand your iPhone to your great-grandparents, they'd think you were Captain Kirk from Star Trek. The impossible yesterday is routine today. Wait until tomorrow" (p.34). This is both inspiring and terrifying. This idea, I feel, is what inspires people to dream big, to come up with seemingly crazy solutions to today's and tomorrow's problems. This idea is also a bit ominous since my mind drifts towards technology that could be immeasurably harmful such as nuclear weapons —or whatever comes after nuclear weapons— and artificial intelligence, which is potentially good or bad. Chapter 3 Quote: "The real issue is that the very foundations upon which our current systems of education are built are shifting beneath our feet" (p. 53). Robinson continues to reinforce this message that there needs to be a shift in education that matches the shifts in our culture and our economy. Question: The section on academic inflation is worrisome. Robinson describes how college degrees are becoming more and more common to the point that he heard one chairman of a university appointment panel say the panel was looking for a candidate with a "good PhD" as if some PhDs were lousy. Some of my best friends are currently working on either a Masters or a PhD and plan on still being a student into their thirties. This means they will most likely have more student loans and fewer years to pay those loans off. But those prestigious degrees are what it takes to get the kinds of jobs my friends want to get. This leads me to two questions. Firstly, in our economics system, the government often intervenes in order to prevent runaway inflation. In other words, the government takes steps to minimize inflation so that people's money doesn't lose too much value in a short period of time. How can this be done with academic inflation? I don't think reducing the number of people going to college is the right decision, so how can we prevent a B.A. from becoming no more valuable than a High School Diploma? Secondly, if the value of such degrees is going down, why is tuition at most colleges going up? I ask this somewhat sarcastically since I'm aware federal funding for higher education has gone down over the years therefore costs to universities has gone up and that cost gets passed on to students and their parents, but nevertheless, these high cost/low(er) value institutions seems to defy the laws of economics. Connection: On page 61, Robinson writes about the perceived "useful disciplines" and the "useless ones." We see science, language, and maths as far more important than art, history, music, and drama. He goes on to say how when school budgets have to be reduced, the arts are usually the departments that suffer. From viewing TED talks and studying pedagogy in my credential program, I've seen the importance of programs such as art and dance and how impactful they can be for students who aren't well-suited to sitting at a desk all day and doing calculations and studying grammar. Epiphany: So far in the book, Robinson seems to be making the argument that our education system is antiquated and it needs to catch up with our quickly evolving 21st century economy. His message seems to change a bit, however, in the third chapter when he says "it is a mistake to think of the relationship between education and the economy as a straightforward process of supply and demand, like producing motor cars. While industrial systems may be standardized, mechanistic and linear, human life simply is not" (p. 59). This made me think back to my question from Chapter 1 concerning what outcomes we expect education to have on career prospects. Yes, our lives are not standardized and often not linear, but many of us go to college with the expectation of entering a particular job market after graduation. If what Robinson says is true and we shouldn't view the relationship between education and the economy as a straightforward process, we should communicate that idea to students before they invest tens of thousands of dollars in higher education. Chapter 4 Quote: "Human intelligence includes the capacity for academic activity; this does not mean that academic activity is the whole of intelligence" (p. 108). This quote really resonates with me because I see so many students who benefit greatly from our current education system because the system suits their kind of intelligence. Oppositely, I see many students whose potential has been left untapped because our system does not allow their specific kind of intelligence to flourish. I believe this is Robinson's main point of Chapter 4 and its well-received. Question: I take Robinson's point that we don't give creativity and individuality enough attention when it comes to education. I think he makes a strong argument that we need to transform education into something that helps all students learn and grow and not just the ones who are more predisposed to academic success. But what I want to know is what, in Ken Robinson's mind, does an ideal school look like? If we were to take Robinson's argument into consideration and rethink our education system, what precise changes would need to be made? Hopefully this will be addressed by the end of the book. Connection: Robinson describes in length how when it comes to the arts, universities will give you a degree for writing about art. If you want to compose art, you typically go to a special school such as a conservatory. My fiancé went through a highly rigorous science illustration program after graduating with a B.S. from a 4 year university. Upon completing the illustration program, she received a certification from the program. And while this program was fairly prestigious, I don't know if it holds the same value on a resumé as a masters degree. Also, I don't understand why such a highly demanding and specialized program wouldn't earn a graduate a degree of some kind. Epiphany: Robinson questions the credibility of intellectual measurements such as the IQ Test and the SAT, saying that "The assumption is that intelligence is quantifiable" (p. 107). I honestly hadn't given it much thought. The concept of an IQ test seems so prevalent in our culture that I took it at face value, but I believe now that Robinson is correct in saying that we measure intelligence under the false assumption that it can even be quantified. Of course, we quantify success/intelligence all the time, especially in school, but I think it's good practice when teachers grade based on improvement, effort, and taking into account the presence of soft skills (e.g. communication, teamwork, etc.). Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. United Kingdom: Capstone Publishing Ltd.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorGeorge Porter, English Teacher at Sage Creek Archives
May 2016
Categories |