Education v. Indoctrination

[always_searching]

So, after my mini-rant in my last thread, I began to wonder about the educational system. I, personally, think that education should be about opening minds, rather than attempting to form minds to think a certain way. Obviously, every professor enters into teaching thinking a certain way, and, understandably, will let his/her bias occasionally slip. However, there is a difference in thinking a certain way and presenting the material in a neutral way, allowing for the students to come to their own decisions, employ critical thinking, etc. versus thinking a certain way and presenting the material in a bias way, chastising the students for thinking in a way that differs from his/her own way, etc.

 

I, luckily, have been fortunate to come across very few professors who are more interested in indoctrination than education, but I have come across them (mostly in the English department, interestingly enough).

 

I wonder: which do you think is more affective and which do you feel as though you received in school? I'm going to assume that most of loveshack opts for education rather than indoctrination, but I could be wrong.

 

 

Also, note that this question isn't just in reference to school, necessarily, but to religious upbringing, raising of children, etc. So, for example, is it better to raise your child as a Christian and not allow for any questioning of God (e.g. "You'll go to HELL, Timmy, if you don't believe in the Living God!"), raise your child as a Christian, but allow for them to employ critical thinking (e.g. "As Christians we believe X, Timmy, but some people believe Y and here's why."), or to raise your child as agnostic regardless of what you believe (e.g. "Mommy's a Christian, Timmy, but that doesn't mean you have to be. Here's all the material for you to consider."), etc.?

Edited June 26, 2010 by always_searching

[Belle Vie]

I have had a wide range of educational experiences--I've earned degrees in college and graduate school, and now I'm back for more in community college. I've had a wide range of professors, from the really good to the really bad. But I wouldn't describe any of them as "indoctrinators." And I've not seen any of them chastise me or any one else in the class for not thinking a certain way.

 

But some of my best teachers have had a strong personal view of the subject they taught. They shared their passion and their outlook. Some of them were strict and even dictatorial about the parameters they set in the classroom. Some weren't shy about telling students they were wrong. And however angry I may have been at them at the time, and no matter how unfair I thought they might have been, I often found, after the class was over, that in fact--they were right. Their way may not have been the ONLY way, but it was a very, very GOOD way of looking at it. By being strict, they taught me an approach that helped me learn to think through a problem efficiently and avoid the mistakes they'd made doing the same.

 

I've probably learned more from professors who shared their point of view fervently and with conviction than I have from professors who just let us think whatever we wanted. I think we learn a lot by watching how professors think their way through problems and following in their footsteps. That gives us a base point from which we can form our own way of doing things after the class is over.

 

In fact, I think the worst professor of all is the one who brings no personal outlook or passion to the classroom. In fact, I just had such a "neutral" professor: His two favorite phrases were "You should have learned that already" and "It's in the book." He wasn't helpful, and he wasn't a good teacher.

 

I even may have been one of those "indoctrinators" you describe. As part of my master's in English, I had to teach English composition to freshmen. I remember one class in which I was trying to teach the students how to use semicolons correctly. I had gone over it before, but they were still making mistakes all over the place. Coincidentally, we were also reading Virginia Woolf at the time, and she breaks semicolon rules frequently and liberally.

 

One kid raised his hand and asked, "Virginia Woolf doesn't use semicolons that way. If she doesn't have to, why do I?" And this student was the one who had made the most mistakes with this in his papers.

 

So, I asked him: "When you misuse a semicolon, are you doing it deliberately? Do you know the rule? If I were to ask you why you used it a certain way, would you be able to tell me what stylistic effect you were trying to achieve? Because Virginia Woolf could. And if you could prove to me you knew the rule and were able to explain why you broke it, you'd hear no argument from me."

 

He looked at me, nodded, and said, "Oh. That makes sense."

 

That's true in EVERY subject. I just took a drawing class for instance. One of the students was really ticked off that he couldn't "draw whatever he wanted." He didn't want to draw the cardboard boxes and the plants and the jackets that the teacher was making us draw. He downright resented it and complained the whole time. And the rest of us thought he was just being stupid. We had to learn to draw these things first, using the techniques the teacher was showing us, before we would be able to draw "whatever we wanted" well. (And, no surprise, his drawings turned out to be the worst in the class.)

 

I have found that when professors are teaching us a certain way of doing something or thinking about something, they're teaching us mastery and control over the material. Yes, it may be "their" way of doing it, but it's a starting point. Only by learning one point of entry, can we learn how to add our own spin. We wouldn't want to jump out of a plane without an instructor first telling us just how to do it and sharing his own experiences. Once we learned how to jump safely according to someone else's instructions THEN we can start forming our own approaches.

 

Without a starting point or frame of reference, students are more likely to develop approaches to critical thinking that are out of control--and even downright wrong. (And although some may think otherwise, someone's analysis of a work of literature CAN be ridiculously wrong, if he or she hasn't been taught to analyze well.)

 

So, that was my long answer. My short answer is this: Professors are human, and by definition, subjective. No professor should be rude or belittling, and all professors should know their subjects well. If they're rude or don't know what they're talking about--well, those are separate issues and just plain bad teaching. But all good professors should be passionate, even though sometimes they'll make mistakes as a result. I think the more subjective and personally passionate they are about their subjects, the better the learning experience will be.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Belle Vie

[ADF]

There is really no way to "neutrally" present most kinds of information. Looking for neutral scholarship is like looking for "objective" journalism. It really doesn't exist. The best way to form one's own ideas is to be exposed to a wide variety of views, not to only look for "neutral" or "objective" ones.