The education we lost
Recently, many of my friends and colleagues working in various business sectors have the same problem, which often turns into a request to prompt a competent specialist in a certain field. But I am far from being a headhunter, not an Eichar employee, not a personnel manager — just a research fellow with a very specific qualification, so turning to my modest person on this issue is nothing but a gesture of despair. Such requests mean that the institutions that exist specifically for this purpose stop working, which leads to the need to look for more or less suitable personnel through familiar specialists. The problem is that these people are representatives of small businesses, department heads, start-up entrepreneurs who do not have a large budget for hired personnel. But, after all, they often do not need Einstein binaries capable of assembling a space shuttle from what is in the garage, but specialists who are able to solve typical tasks that have the knowledge and skills at the level of an ordinary specialist.
What is going on?
The stories about the course of the job interview are similar to each other like two drops. Comrade comes with a diploma, more and more often - red, in specialized subjects - entirely five. Then it is simple: a qualifying question, silence or stupidity in response, an attempt to pull out the applicant with a clarifying question, misunderstanding on the part of the applicant, thanks for taking the time, farewell. Then the next one comes, and you realize that the previous one was not so bad. As a result, there is a dilemma: you can hire one of the interviewees at your disposal and pray that you can make a person within a reasonable time frame, or slack off your belts, rewrite the plan, cut expenses and revise goals only to release money for hiring a more or less trained specialist. That is, to pay for the qualification of the initial level of wages above the average level. On the development in this situation, you can just forget.
In the story about diode bridges a colleague gave an excellent illustration of this phenomenon. Personally, I am well aware of the sad amazement that pervades this article - I, too, grew up on stories about the great achievements of engineering thought of the Soviet Union and it was just incredible that such a level of engineering culture could simply sink into oblivion. But much more touching for me was the thought permeating many comments: “they gave little.” Say, a normal specialist should not work for a penny. I would like to immediately reply to these gentlemen: not a penny was offered, and for work that does not require outstanding skills and abilities. Of course, there are unique specialists who should receive a lot of money for their work - simply because no one else can carry it out. But this is not about possessing unique skills, but about knowledge and skills, the presence of which should be guaranteed by a diploma. And if you come to an employer and call yourself a certified electronic engineer, being unable to draw a diode bridge at that, then you are a liar and a crook who is trying to steal money and time from a potential employer, misleading him about his professional qualities.
')
In this article I tried to describe my vision of this system problem, without bothering myself with the correct wording. Someone may be offended by my words - your right. This is my personal opinion, which I will try to convey to the listener with arguments. Agree with him, dispute or just brush it off - you decide.
So, about sore ...
Any system existing in a changing environment can exist only as long as it maintains communication with the environment and has an adequate idea of ​​its current state. This has been proven many times in the framework of a wide variety of theories. Speaking in Russian, the behavior of an ostrich that has stuck its head in the sand allows only one thing to be achieved - sincere surprise at the moment when the predator coming up behind you starts to tear you to pieces. Loss of connection with reality means the death of the system, instantaneous or stretched over a fairly long period of time - it does not matter.
Why all this? And besides, the time has come to recognize that the world has changed, and it has changed dramatically. In this modified world, old methods and principles no longer work, and ignoring these changes can lead to very sad consequences. This is the question of the system of science and education. And please, I don’t need to say that science and education are different things with different goals and objectives. I have already heard enough of this kindness and I can say with confidence that any argument in favor of this thesis is untenable. If the goal of education is to first form a decent member of society, then a competent specialist, then the achievement of this goal requires the formation of an adequate model of reality for the student — first a common, everyday, then a special, professional one. In this sense, education should never end, because reality is a very changeable thing. The goal of science is to understand this very reality in its various manifestations. Understand and explain. Examine and pass. Science and education. One without the other is meaningless.
Let's look at the facts. Previously, there existed a magnificent, fundamentally Soviet, system of science and education, aimed at obtaining a young man of fundamental knowledge with their subsequent consolidation in production. Why great? At least by how many great minds were brought up in her bosom and how many scientific achievements were obtained. Not a single twentieth-century research area did not come without significant contributions from Soviet scientists, and much of what comes to us today from abroad in the form of expensive know-how on close examination turns out to be the realization of those ideas and results that come from Soviet science. No, they are there over the hill - well done, because we found the strength and courage to understand these ideas and bring them to life, we could not. In this case, I am saddened only by the fact that the achievements of our fathers and grandfathers need to make such a loop in order to earn our attention, and they no longer appear in their original elegant form, but look like impressive achievements of systems alien to us. It was as if they couldn’t be surprised without it ... But this system of scientific schools, institutes and universities was good in that world that existed forty years ago, and any attempt to return to it is no more than chasing the ghost of former greatness. There is already no level of industry in which the theoretical knowledge gained can be experienced in practice. There is no planned economy that would allow at least an approximate assessment of the need for specialists in various fields and their qualifications. Worse, the pursuit of global scientific trends has led to a huge gap between the theoretical principles taught in higher education and actual practice. Today, a decent professional education is really provided by those universities that have managed to avoid this gap, even at the cost of some lagging behind the notorious “world level”. But the trains go, the planes take off and the atom does not explode. Following Soviet traditions allows you to maintain life where there is still an industry.
It should be clarified that by the education system I do not understand the list of regulatory documents issued by the divisions of our valiant government. No, the education system is its constituent people: professors, assistant professors, accountants, administrators, students, students' mothers - in general, everyone who is at least somehow involved in the educational process. The laws of the functioning of this system are determined by agreements and agreements, explicit and implicit, between all its constituents. And this educational system was supposed to adapt to the changes that had occurred. And I could not. I think that the reason for this was precisely how well she had recommended herself in the old days. Those people who worked most of their lives according to the accepted guidelines, brought up a new generation of future professors and were accustomed to the quite expected average result of their work, it was very difficult to realize the changes that had taken place and adapt to them. And they continued to do what they always did, assuming unreasonably that they receive approximately the same as before, and their actions lead to the same consequences. The changes grew, and the understanding to the general mass of workers did not come. Why? There were no new requirements for the system, changes “from above” did not change the essence, there was no significant discussion either inside or outside the system. Probably just afraid to touch something. Previously, it seemed to work quite well ... And the connection with reality was becoming less and less, the belief in the effectiveness of disguise by putting your head in the sand grew and grew. Finally, we got what we got. The complete isolation of the entire system of science and education from reality, resulting in degradation at all levels - from school graduates to young professionals, scientific and teaching staff. Moreover, this isolation has acquired a militant character. Degradation has reached such a level that even the most weak-sighted cannot ignore it. But instead of looking for reasons for the failure of the current rules of the game, everything is blamed on the lack of accuracy of their execution, they issue new directives, performance indicators, educational standards, recommendations, requirements, threats ... Personally, this reminds me of the behavior of a failed engineer who took a contract to build carts, but stupidly put the wheels square. And the time is running out, and the cart does not go. But instead of stopping and thinking, the unfortunate engineer blames the problem on the insufficient "squareness" of the wheels and hysterically levels them with a file. At each level of the existing education system, there is a feeling of own sinlessness, absolute rightness. And if I were asked to describe the principle of its functioning in one word, my choice is unequivocal: irresponsibility.
We all have heard about the high engineering culture, which took place during the Soviet era. Every time, when you need to emphasize the greatness of the Russian / Soviet engineering school, are examples of flights of Soviet missiles, the power of Russian tanks and helicopters and other large-scale, causing genuine pride in the homeland, examples. I think that any competent specialist will easily lead to the achievements of the Soviet school, which had a serious impact on the development of his field. What if we narrow the time frame to, say, the last twenty years and ask about the achievements of not the Union, but modern Russia? Here it turns out to be more difficult, because achievements are much more modest. No, many specialists with due will certainly remember something, but the showiness will not be the same. But now is not about that. Not about achievements, but about “culture”. What is meant by this culture? In order not to indulge in lengthy reasoning, we will define the engineering culture of an individual as the ability to solve engineering problems with a sufficient degree of professionalism and to make sound conclusions that go beyond his daily professional duties. A measure of engineering culture then can be considered the breadth of a range of engineering issues in which an individual can be considered as an expert to an acceptable extent. We will accept without proof the thesis that engineering culture in the Soviet Union was quite high - it is quite obvious for those who have had experience with engineers of the “old school”, and we return to the problem raised by the author of an article on diode bridges, namely the level of engineering culture of graduates of engineering universities, observed recently.
And we come to a disappointing conclusion - he inexorably falls to indecent levels. A colleague gave an example of diode bridges - a question that is included in the basic university electronics course. Let me remind you just in case that electronics is a required course of any engineering specialty, and to answer the above question there is not even a need to understand this subject deeply, it’s enough to know three things: what is a diode, current direction in a circuit and why a bridge is needed. Not able to answer these questions "expert" in the logic of things in general should not have received a diploma. And if the graduate with a degree in engineering technology can still be forgiven for the lack of an instant “at least wake-up” answer, then a person for whom electronics is a core subject is by no means. But describing the process of recruiting employees, a colleague cited not one, not two - many examples of incompetent graduates, who not only received an undergraduate diploma, also want to get a decent salary.
Leave a funny comment that the employer offered little and qualified personnel simply did not go to him. The people described do not have to work in their specialty at all, much less receive money for it. But they work. Not in their specialty - so close so much so that the availability of sufficient knowledge and skills should be guaranteed by the presence of this engineering culture.
Which is not. Well, the truth is, if a person does not possess elementary knowledge in his immediate specialty, is there really any reason to believe that he possesses them in a different, even if arbitrarily close? He is guaranteed to be an amateur. And if he works, then it is precisely this level of specialist that is considered permissible in the organization that hired him. Personally, I really would not want to have any business with such an organization. And you?
I think you do not need to convince anyone that the appearance of the Internet has changed everything. Any information has become available, just ask Google a question (or who has some religion there) and you will receive an answer. And maybe a few answers. Just a holiday - an abundance of information, opinions, interpretations, everything is quick and clear.
So we used to think. And they came to the conclusion: if information is always at hand, if you can quickly get an answer to any question, then you don’t need to know anything. Want to know something - open Wikipedia. Here I will not even dispute the thesis that there is everything on the Internet, just to point out the consequence - the complete depreciation of such a thing as professionalism. Today every gopher is an agronomist. To read about something does not mean this “something” to understand, it requires much more complex mental work — to bring out the consequences, to find inconsistencies with what you previously knew, to identify unobvious moments, and so on. Available information is useful only to those who can perceive and critically comprehend it - and for this you need to have a good understanding of the issue under study. Competent work with information is also a skill that needs to be learned. We have a reality in which everyone considers himself an expert in everything and having no idea about the limits of his competence is ultimately incompetent in everything.
In education, wikipedation led to horrendous consequences for me. In the student environment, the information search is replaced by a search in Yandex. I do not have any complete statistics, but in my university the number of students in the university library from the moment I was a student, even during the session, was reduced by five times, and this figure would probably have been more if it had not been conducted free wifi Only eight years have passed since I was a freshman - and then there was no place to sit in the library during the session. Fragments of the text of term papers and essays handed over by students without straining to be found in the search engines, just like a survey on material given for independent study, turns into reproduction of wikipedia articles. But in the teaching environment, wikipels have led to even worse consequences. Teachers who are younger and more thoughtful read the materials downloaded from Ineta at lectures, or even if it is too lazy, if they permit me to say, they nominate speakers from the students who find and reproduce this material instead. The other side of the medal is the teacher’s complete disregard for such a factor as the student’s understanding of the material presented. Let's be honest, for many, exam preparation is a search for answers to exam tickets online the night before the exam. There is no understanding or coherence of thoughts. And if the examining teacher is not a complete idiot, then he sees it perfectly. And often does not do anything. Because to recognize this is to sign off on your inconsistency as a teacher at least for this particular course, to admit your mistakes, to work on yourself. It's hard. It's easier to score and say that the students are badly caught. And not only students are bad, but also those who let them study like this.
I’m not trying to say at all that Wikipedia, Yandex, the Internet is evil in itself and must be isolated from them. Not at all. Simply, these are elements of the existing reality and their influence needs to be analyzed and taken into account. It is time to understand that the availability of information has made teaching as a profession not at all easier, but much more difficult, since the teacher’s goal is not only and not so much to hammer young heads with various facts, but to link them into a single consistent system. That is, we need to remember that the university should prepare professionals, not intellectual talk show players.
In this section, I allow myself to give an answer (or at least part of the answer) to the classic Russian questions: “who is to blame?” And “what to do?”.
Who is guilty? The first part of the answer is more or less clear. Do not blame the ministry and hedgehog with them, they are even sweet in their stupidity. What to expect from people who regularly slip reports, where the colors show how good and progressive? Certainly not qualified management decisions. No, gentlemen. We are to blame for those who allowed and continue to allow it, those who like this position and those who do not care. Stop feeding yourself with the illusion that if we don’t teach, we’ll learn. Those who were lucky enough to learn from real professionals on their life's journey understand that even half an hour of communication with them can breathe life into the dry, seemingly well-known, but not well-understood, intricacies of the theory and cover your "ingenious" technical solutions with a copper basin. It is their experience, their knowledge, which you will not find in most books and you certainly will not find on the Internet. Do not underestimate the role of the teacher.
Are you a teacher? Pull, pardon, your head from the place where it is located, and realize that you are creating the future. Yes, what the hell pathetics? You are preparing those who will then work, and the quality of this work also depends on the level of your life. No need to console yourself with phrases like "this is not a qualifying subject, they will not need it" - you do not know. What is better: to be loved by everyone for a “human” attitude and to breed non-professionals, or to call on yourself the hatred of idlers, but letting out specialists for whom it would not be a shame? I understand that it is difficult, that there is a lot of bureaucracy, barriers and stupidity, but if you have chosen such a work, have the courage to do it properly.
Are you a student? Answer the simple question: “What are you doing to master the profession?”. No, seriously, how many books have you read lately? How do the marks in your register reflect the real level of your knowledge? There is nothing wrong with admitting that there are gaps. The question is what will you do about it.
You can continue, appealing to the mind of parents, EGEzatorov and others. The thought, I think, is understandable. You can shout that the world is not fair, that everyone is doing this, but you can try to do something about it. And start, preferably with yourself.
What to do? Concerning the day of tomorrow. The higher centering system of consciousness did its job and led to all of the above. "You have no crust - it means you are no one." It needs to be changed. It is necessary to revive technical schools and clearly define their function - training of secondary qualifications with a specific specialization. And to understand that it is not shameful to be a vocational school graduate - without mechanics, turners, coders, the work of an engineer of arbitrarily high qualifications does not make sense. Let's honestly admit to ourselves - many university graduates and so today have the level of average professional, and they demand salary for themselves at the level of a competent frame of higher qualification.
, . , , . , , , — — , , . , , , , ? , , , ? . , — . , .
. , — , , «» . , . , . — , , , , , . , . . - , . -, , . — . -, , . -, -. ? . , , , , , . — , . , . — , , , , .
As for today's day, if you are engaged in real engineering activity and do not exclude the possibility of expansion, invest today in the future. In the second and third year it is quite realistic to find guys who can and want to learn a profession. No need to wait for the initiative from universities - it will not. Take these guys to your practice, short internships - in the end, just talk to them. There is nothing more inspiring than communicating with a real expert. Believe me, there are even those who go to work for free or for a nominal fee - experience is more valuable. Many will eventually be eliminated, but the rest will become specialists you can be sure of. Not to mention that you will do a really useful job.
What is going on?
The stories about the course of the job interview are similar to each other like two drops. Comrade comes with a diploma, more and more often - red, in specialized subjects - entirely five. Then it is simple: a qualifying question, silence or stupidity in response, an attempt to pull out the applicant with a clarifying question, misunderstanding on the part of the applicant, thanks for taking the time, farewell. Then the next one comes, and you realize that the previous one was not so bad. As a result, there is a dilemma: you can hire one of the interviewees at your disposal and pray that you can make a person within a reasonable time frame, or slack off your belts, rewrite the plan, cut expenses and revise goals only to release money for hiring a more or less trained specialist. That is, to pay for the qualification of the initial level of wages above the average level. On the development in this situation, you can just forget.
In the story about diode bridges a colleague gave an excellent illustration of this phenomenon. Personally, I am well aware of the sad amazement that pervades this article - I, too, grew up on stories about the great achievements of engineering thought of the Soviet Union and it was just incredible that such a level of engineering culture could simply sink into oblivion. But much more touching for me was the thought permeating many comments: “they gave little.” Say, a normal specialist should not work for a penny. I would like to immediately reply to these gentlemen: not a penny was offered, and for work that does not require outstanding skills and abilities. Of course, there are unique specialists who should receive a lot of money for their work - simply because no one else can carry it out. But this is not about possessing unique skills, but about knowledge and skills, the presence of which should be guaranteed by a diploma. And if you come to an employer and call yourself a certified electronic engineer, being unable to draw a diode bridge at that, then you are a liar and a crook who is trying to steal money and time from a potential employer, misleading him about his professional qualities.
')
In this article I tried to describe my vision of this system problem, without bothering myself with the correct wording. Someone may be offended by my words - your right. This is my personal opinion, which I will try to convey to the listener with arguments. Agree with him, dispute or just brush it off - you decide.
So, about sore ...
About the education system
Any system existing in a changing environment can exist only as long as it maintains communication with the environment and has an adequate idea of ​​its current state. This has been proven many times in the framework of a wide variety of theories. Speaking in Russian, the behavior of an ostrich that has stuck its head in the sand allows only one thing to be achieved - sincere surprise at the moment when the predator coming up behind you starts to tear you to pieces. Loss of connection with reality means the death of the system, instantaneous or stretched over a fairly long period of time - it does not matter.
Why all this? And besides, the time has come to recognize that the world has changed, and it has changed dramatically. In this modified world, old methods and principles no longer work, and ignoring these changes can lead to very sad consequences. This is the question of the system of science and education. And please, I don’t need to say that science and education are different things with different goals and objectives. I have already heard enough of this kindness and I can say with confidence that any argument in favor of this thesis is untenable. If the goal of education is to first form a decent member of society, then a competent specialist, then the achievement of this goal requires the formation of an adequate model of reality for the student — first a common, everyday, then a special, professional one. In this sense, education should never end, because reality is a very changeable thing. The goal of science is to understand this very reality in its various manifestations. Understand and explain. Examine and pass. Science and education. One without the other is meaningless.
Let's look at the facts. Previously, there existed a magnificent, fundamentally Soviet, system of science and education, aimed at obtaining a young man of fundamental knowledge with their subsequent consolidation in production. Why great? At least by how many great minds were brought up in her bosom and how many scientific achievements were obtained. Not a single twentieth-century research area did not come without significant contributions from Soviet scientists, and much of what comes to us today from abroad in the form of expensive know-how on close examination turns out to be the realization of those ideas and results that come from Soviet science. No, they are there over the hill - well done, because we found the strength and courage to understand these ideas and bring them to life, we could not. In this case, I am saddened only by the fact that the achievements of our fathers and grandfathers need to make such a loop in order to earn our attention, and they no longer appear in their original elegant form, but look like impressive achievements of systems alien to us. It was as if they couldn’t be surprised without it ... But this system of scientific schools, institutes and universities was good in that world that existed forty years ago, and any attempt to return to it is no more than chasing the ghost of former greatness. There is already no level of industry in which the theoretical knowledge gained can be experienced in practice. There is no planned economy that would allow at least an approximate assessment of the need for specialists in various fields and their qualifications. Worse, the pursuit of global scientific trends has led to a huge gap between the theoretical principles taught in higher education and actual practice. Today, a decent professional education is really provided by those universities that have managed to avoid this gap, even at the cost of some lagging behind the notorious “world level”. But the trains go, the planes take off and the atom does not explode. Following Soviet traditions allows you to maintain life where there is still an industry.
It should be clarified that by the education system I do not understand the list of regulatory documents issued by the divisions of our valiant government. No, the education system is its constituent people: professors, assistant professors, accountants, administrators, students, students' mothers - in general, everyone who is at least somehow involved in the educational process. The laws of the functioning of this system are determined by agreements and agreements, explicit and implicit, between all its constituents. And this educational system was supposed to adapt to the changes that had occurred. And I could not. I think that the reason for this was precisely how well she had recommended herself in the old days. Those people who worked most of their lives according to the accepted guidelines, brought up a new generation of future professors and were accustomed to the quite expected average result of their work, it was very difficult to realize the changes that had taken place and adapt to them. And they continued to do what they always did, assuming unreasonably that they receive approximately the same as before, and their actions lead to the same consequences. The changes grew, and the understanding to the general mass of workers did not come. Why? There were no new requirements for the system, changes “from above” did not change the essence, there was no significant discussion either inside or outside the system. Probably just afraid to touch something. Previously, it seemed to work quite well ... And the connection with reality was becoming less and less, the belief in the effectiveness of disguise by putting your head in the sand grew and grew. Finally, we got what we got. The complete isolation of the entire system of science and education from reality, resulting in degradation at all levels - from school graduates to young professionals, scientific and teaching staff. Moreover, this isolation has acquired a militant character. Degradation has reached such a level that even the most weak-sighted cannot ignore it. But instead of looking for reasons for the failure of the current rules of the game, everything is blamed on the lack of accuracy of their execution, they issue new directives, performance indicators, educational standards, recommendations, requirements, threats ... Personally, this reminds me of the behavior of a failed engineer who took a contract to build carts, but stupidly put the wheels square. And the time is running out, and the cart does not go. But instead of stopping and thinking, the unfortunate engineer blames the problem on the insufficient "squareness" of the wheels and hysterically levels them with a file. At each level of the existing education system, there is a feeling of own sinlessness, absolute rightness. And if I were asked to describe the principle of its functioning in one word, my choice is unequivocal: irresponsibility.
About engineering culture
We all have heard about the high engineering culture, which took place during the Soviet era. Every time, when you need to emphasize the greatness of the Russian / Soviet engineering school, are examples of flights of Soviet missiles, the power of Russian tanks and helicopters and other large-scale, causing genuine pride in the homeland, examples. I think that any competent specialist will easily lead to the achievements of the Soviet school, which had a serious impact on the development of his field. What if we narrow the time frame to, say, the last twenty years and ask about the achievements of not the Union, but modern Russia? Here it turns out to be more difficult, because achievements are much more modest. No, many specialists with due will certainly remember something, but the showiness will not be the same. But now is not about that. Not about achievements, but about “culture”. What is meant by this culture? In order not to indulge in lengthy reasoning, we will define the engineering culture of an individual as the ability to solve engineering problems with a sufficient degree of professionalism and to make sound conclusions that go beyond his daily professional duties. A measure of engineering culture then can be considered the breadth of a range of engineering issues in which an individual can be considered as an expert to an acceptable extent. We will accept without proof the thesis that engineering culture in the Soviet Union was quite high - it is quite obvious for those who have had experience with engineers of the “old school”, and we return to the problem raised by the author of an article on diode bridges, namely the level of engineering culture of graduates of engineering universities, observed recently.
And we come to a disappointing conclusion - he inexorably falls to indecent levels. A colleague gave an example of diode bridges - a question that is included in the basic university electronics course. Let me remind you just in case that electronics is a required course of any engineering specialty, and to answer the above question there is not even a need to understand this subject deeply, it’s enough to know three things: what is a diode, current direction in a circuit and why a bridge is needed. Not able to answer these questions "expert" in the logic of things in general should not have received a diploma. And if the graduate with a degree in engineering technology can still be forgiven for the lack of an instant “at least wake-up” answer, then a person for whom electronics is a core subject is by no means. But describing the process of recruiting employees, a colleague cited not one, not two - many examples of incompetent graduates, who not only received an undergraduate diploma, also want to get a decent salary.
Leave a funny comment that the employer offered little and qualified personnel simply did not go to him. The people described do not have to work in their specialty at all, much less receive money for it. But they work. Not in their specialty - so close so much so that the availability of sufficient knowledge and skills should be guaranteed by the presence of this engineering culture.
Which is not. Well, the truth is, if a person does not possess elementary knowledge in his immediate specialty, is there really any reason to believe that he possesses them in a different, even if arbitrarily close? He is guaranteed to be an amateur. And if he works, then it is precisely this level of specialist that is considered permissible in the organization that hired him. Personally, I really would not want to have any business with such an organization. And you?
Wikipedia Generation
I think you do not need to convince anyone that the appearance of the Internet has changed everything. Any information has become available, just ask Google a question (or who has some religion there) and you will receive an answer. And maybe a few answers. Just a holiday - an abundance of information, opinions, interpretations, everything is quick and clear.
So we used to think. And they came to the conclusion: if information is always at hand, if you can quickly get an answer to any question, then you don’t need to know anything. Want to know something - open Wikipedia. Here I will not even dispute the thesis that there is everything on the Internet, just to point out the consequence - the complete depreciation of such a thing as professionalism. Today every gopher is an agronomist. To read about something does not mean this “something” to understand, it requires much more complex mental work — to bring out the consequences, to find inconsistencies with what you previously knew, to identify unobvious moments, and so on. Available information is useful only to those who can perceive and critically comprehend it - and for this you need to have a good understanding of the issue under study. Competent work with information is also a skill that needs to be learned. We have a reality in which everyone considers himself an expert in everything and having no idea about the limits of his competence is ultimately incompetent in everything.
In education, wikipedation led to horrendous consequences for me. In the student environment, the information search is replaced by a search in Yandex. I do not have any complete statistics, but in my university the number of students in the university library from the moment I was a student, even during the session, was reduced by five times, and this figure would probably have been more if it had not been conducted free wifi Only eight years have passed since I was a freshman - and then there was no place to sit in the library during the session. Fragments of the text of term papers and essays handed over by students without straining to be found in the search engines, just like a survey on material given for independent study, turns into reproduction of wikipedia articles. But in the teaching environment, wikipels have led to even worse consequences. Teachers who are younger and more thoughtful read the materials downloaded from Ineta at lectures, or even if it is too lazy, if they permit me to say, they nominate speakers from the students who find and reproduce this material instead. The other side of the medal is the teacher’s complete disregard for such a factor as the student’s understanding of the material presented. Let's be honest, for many, exam preparation is a search for answers to exam tickets online the night before the exam. There is no understanding or coherence of thoughts. And if the examining teacher is not a complete idiot, then he sees it perfectly. And often does not do anything. Because to recognize this is to sign off on your inconsistency as a teacher at least for this particular course, to admit your mistakes, to work on yourself. It's hard. It's easier to score and say that the students are badly caught. And not only students are bad, but also those who let them study like this.
I’m not trying to say at all that Wikipedia, Yandex, the Internet is evil in itself and must be isolated from them. Not at all. Simply, these are elements of the existing reality and their influence needs to be analyzed and taken into account. It is time to understand that the availability of information has made teaching as a profession not at all easier, but much more difficult, since the teacher’s goal is not only and not so much to hammer young heads with various facts, but to link them into a single consistent system. That is, we need to remember that the university should prepare professionals, not intellectual talk show players.
Imitating Chernyshevsky, or a reason to stone me
In this section, I allow myself to give an answer (or at least part of the answer) to the classic Russian questions: “who is to blame?” And “what to do?”.
Who is guilty? The first part of the answer is more or less clear. Do not blame the ministry and hedgehog with them, they are even sweet in their stupidity. What to expect from people who regularly slip reports, where the colors show how good and progressive? Certainly not qualified management decisions. No, gentlemen. We are to blame for those who allowed and continue to allow it, those who like this position and those who do not care. Stop feeding yourself with the illusion that if we don’t teach, we’ll learn. Those who were lucky enough to learn from real professionals on their life's journey understand that even half an hour of communication with them can breathe life into the dry, seemingly well-known, but not well-understood, intricacies of the theory and cover your "ingenious" technical solutions with a copper basin. It is their experience, their knowledge, which you will not find in most books and you certainly will not find on the Internet. Do not underestimate the role of the teacher.
Are you a teacher? Pull, pardon, your head from the place where it is located, and realize that you are creating the future. Yes, what the hell pathetics? You are preparing those who will then work, and the quality of this work also depends on the level of your life. No need to console yourself with phrases like "this is not a qualifying subject, they will not need it" - you do not know. What is better: to be loved by everyone for a “human” attitude and to breed non-professionals, or to call on yourself the hatred of idlers, but letting out specialists for whom it would not be a shame? I understand that it is difficult, that there is a lot of bureaucracy, barriers and stupidity, but if you have chosen such a work, have the courage to do it properly.
Are you a student? Answer the simple question: “What are you doing to master the profession?”. No, seriously, how many books have you read lately? How do the marks in your register reflect the real level of your knowledge? There is nothing wrong with admitting that there are gaps. The question is what will you do about it.
You can continue, appealing to the mind of parents, EGEzatorov and others. The thought, I think, is understandable. You can shout that the world is not fair, that everyone is doing this, but you can try to do something about it. And start, preferably with yourself.
What to do? Concerning the day of tomorrow. The higher centering system of consciousness did its job and led to all of the above. "You have no crust - it means you are no one." It needs to be changed. It is necessary to revive technical schools and clearly define their function - training of secondary qualifications with a specific specialization. And to understand that it is not shameful to be a vocational school graduate - without mechanics, turners, coders, the work of an engineer of arbitrarily high qualifications does not make sense. Let's honestly admit to ourselves - many university graduates and so today have the level of average professional, and they demand salary for themselves at the level of a competent frame of higher qualification.
, . , , . , , , — — , , . , , , , ? , , , ? . , — . , .
. , — , , «» . , . , . — , , , , , . , . . - , . -, , . — . -, , . -, -. ? . , , , , , . — , . , . — , , , , .
As for today's day, if you are engaged in real engineering activity and do not exclude the possibility of expansion, invest today in the future. In the second and third year it is quite realistic to find guys who can and want to learn a profession. No need to wait for the initiative from universities - it will not. Take these guys to your practice, short internships - in the end, just talk to them. There is nothing more inspiring than communicating with a real expert. Believe me, there are even those who go to work for free or for a nominal fee - experience is more valuable. Many will eventually be eliminated, but the rest will become specialists you can be sure of. Not to mention that you will do a really useful job.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/240421/
All Articles