Once again about education, theory and practice ...
There is a lot of writing about the poor quality of Russian education and indicate this as the main reason for the lack of professionals. You can agree, you can not - but I don’t see a direct link between education and professionalism.
I can not stay away and therefore I will try to clarify the position.
The school and the university are not intended to prepare superprofessionals in any field. This is not their task. They provide the fundamental knowledge necessary for the life and general development of a person. Must at least teach to work with information, analyze it, be able to use the knowledge gained in a complex. It is impossible to prepare normal programmers in an ordinary school - for anyone who wants to become an economist has enough knowledge of the basics of programming (for a normal person to understand what it is for), it is enough for a programmer to know the basics of economics, etc. - why superfluous? Even the future programmer, in principle, in the framework of the program, it is enough to know the basics of programming in different languages. Enough and it is necessary to know! If you are interested in a certain direction (and the teacher’s task is the right one to interest you), the one who wants to become a professional in this field will independently continue to study this area for the rest of his life. Do not be proud that you have mastered something yourself - this is the norm. No one will, and should not, forcefully push a person into something that is not interesting to him. After all, from one and the same university come out as people becoming gurus in their field, and those who can not explain to whom he studied these five years - and here the university, and teachers?
At school and at the university, he also thought that teachers were stuffing their heads with nonsense non-specialty stuff - but oddly enough, now I see this as an advantage to domestic education. A person should approach the problem in a complex way, and this is possible only if there is knowledge from various fields. You can be proud that you have learned to perfect some kind of programming language, and not be able to competently write content to the created site, not be able to submit it, and just not be able to maintain a civilized conversation - and then complain that someone from colleagues earned money. more (after all, they hire a person, not a PC — even a powerful J).
There are of course exceptions, but they rather confirm the rule.
')
Thus, the school / university must provide the fundamental basis, the theory of everything and develop the desire for self-education. In most cases, knowledge of teachers is sufficient for this (it is even possible that you know more than a teacher in a narrow field). But the practice must be developed exclusively independently. The practice should help and organize this process accordingly. At school, we can talk about electives, at an institution of higher education about seminars (by the way, is there still such a notion J?). Many complain that students and schoolchildren do not know anything applied here, but what's stopping you from going to the same school or university in your free time and holding a practical elective / seminar? If there are such cool specialists as follows from the posts, they will surely accept such a proposal with joy. This will allow you to confirm to yourself and everyone that the person is really a professional (especially if something good comes out of the wards). This is probably one of the most accurate criteria for determining professionalism - when your students say “I learned from ...” and not write how badly they teach us. The rest is a thing in itself. In no case should this be regarded as a waste of time - teaching at the university will allow practitioners to communicate with people, answer questions and receive valuable information from the most active part of the modern audience, i.e. constantly learn by yourself. In addition, direct work with future colleagues will allow from the very beginning to select the most interesting personnel and prepare them for themselves.
The only question is whether there really are so many professional practitioners who can be allowed to admit someone else and teach ...
Which practitioner is ready to go to teach? Which of you will be taught? What can you give yourself to students? Will you be able to do it so that about you a month after your studies they did not write that they didn’t teach anything at the university? If you have not answered all these questions or are in doubt, should the education that exist be so disgraced? Where is it better and why?
In general, as always - who if not us? Change what you don't like.
I can not stay away and therefore I will try to clarify the position.
The school and the university are not intended to prepare superprofessionals in any field. This is not their task. They provide the fundamental knowledge necessary for the life and general development of a person. Must at least teach to work with information, analyze it, be able to use the knowledge gained in a complex. It is impossible to prepare normal programmers in an ordinary school - for anyone who wants to become an economist has enough knowledge of the basics of programming (for a normal person to understand what it is for), it is enough for a programmer to know the basics of economics, etc. - why superfluous? Even the future programmer, in principle, in the framework of the program, it is enough to know the basics of programming in different languages. Enough and it is necessary to know! If you are interested in a certain direction (and the teacher’s task is the right one to interest you), the one who wants to become a professional in this field will independently continue to study this area for the rest of his life. Do not be proud that you have mastered something yourself - this is the norm. No one will, and should not, forcefully push a person into something that is not interesting to him. After all, from one and the same university come out as people becoming gurus in their field, and those who can not explain to whom he studied these five years - and here the university, and teachers?
At school and at the university, he also thought that teachers were stuffing their heads with nonsense non-specialty stuff - but oddly enough, now I see this as an advantage to domestic education. A person should approach the problem in a complex way, and this is possible only if there is knowledge from various fields. You can be proud that you have learned to perfect some kind of programming language, and not be able to competently write content to the created site, not be able to submit it, and just not be able to maintain a civilized conversation - and then complain that someone from colleagues earned money. more (after all, they hire a person, not a PC — even a powerful J).
There are of course exceptions, but they rather confirm the rule.
')
Thus, the school / university must provide the fundamental basis, the theory of everything and develop the desire for self-education. In most cases, knowledge of teachers is sufficient for this (it is even possible that you know more than a teacher in a narrow field). But the practice must be developed exclusively independently. The practice should help and organize this process accordingly. At school, we can talk about electives, at an institution of higher education about seminars (by the way, is there still such a notion J?). Many complain that students and schoolchildren do not know anything applied here, but what's stopping you from going to the same school or university in your free time and holding a practical elective / seminar? If there are such cool specialists as follows from the posts, they will surely accept such a proposal with joy. This will allow you to confirm to yourself and everyone that the person is really a professional (especially if something good comes out of the wards). This is probably one of the most accurate criteria for determining professionalism - when your students say “I learned from ...” and not write how badly they teach us. The rest is a thing in itself. In no case should this be regarded as a waste of time - teaching at the university will allow practitioners to communicate with people, answer questions and receive valuable information from the most active part of the modern audience, i.e. constantly learn by yourself. In addition, direct work with future colleagues will allow from the very beginning to select the most interesting personnel and prepare them for themselves.
The only question is whether there really are so many professional practitioners who can be allowed to admit someone else and teach ...
Which practitioner is ready to go to teach? Which of you will be taught? What can you give yourself to students? Will you be able to do it so that about you a month after your studies they did not write that they didn’t teach anything at the university? If you have not answered all these questions or are in doubt, should the education that exist be so disgraced? Where is it better and why?
In general, as always - who if not us? Change what you don't like.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/26834/
All Articles