My education experience

UP: Gregory gave a very interesting reference, it looks like a solution to the problem . Actually, you can immediately read it.

Being busy in teaching people (universities and trainings, refresher courses), I see that education in the traditional sense gives very little useful (in fact, I do not discover America).
I am interested in the reasons for this situation:

1 (most important). At school and university students give answers to those questions that they did not ask. (I was bored and uninteresting in class on philosophy to listen to the statements of an 80-year-old Marxist that the meaning of life lies in the development of the dialectical understanding of this term. But then I was interested in how to optimize Prokudin’s photos combining time and memory - Gorsky. But it’s sad not to say a word about optimization to couples.) If you take this huge amount of information seriously, then the time for something guaranteed useful will be much less, and as a result the person will know from every little bit of everything, but in general he will not be able to charge anything responsible.

2. Since students tell a lot of different things, learning takes a very long time. 11 years in school + 5 years in high school. At the same time, few people can remember any even simple school formulas from physics, mathematics or chemistry (or the rules of the Russian language), if his area of ​​professional interests is not connected with these questions. I believe that spending a huge amount of time on acquiring knowledge that will never come in handy is at least silly.
')
3. Since the information taught to people is unlikely to be needed, it becomes possible to teach it poorly. This is more true, in my opinion, of universities, rather than schools. There are no generally accepted criteria for assessing teachers. This leads to the fact that “whoever is, he reads,” and students do not respect such teachers with the ensuing consequences.

4. A standard set of financial problems, pofigizma, bureaucracy, primitive struggle.

At the same time, one cannot deny the presence of positive points:

1. Due to the large amount of information a person can independently decide what he likes and where to go next. At least, so considered. For example, we decided to make from a person whose soul does not lie in programming, a programmer. The programmer-middling will turn out. These are also very necessary. But if we give him the choice, he will become a genius poet, for example. And maybe it will not. (My personal example showed that the decision of the parents at the time of entering the university was the best. But this is a matter of education.)
In order for a person to have the opportunity to consciously decide which way to go, he must be sufficiently mature and independent. Sometimes it happens.

2. Erudition, or versatile education. Erudite people - those who know the answer to any question. Of course, this is a huge advantage. But, unfortunately, only a handful reach erudition.

In general, I am convinced that education now achieves only one, minimal, goal: it gives a person the opportunity to choose what to learn and then learn on his own.

I would be interested to know whether there is such a form of education that is devoid of the above disadvantages. Of course, the best way to transfer information experience - from the master apprentice. It is assumed that the master has very few students.

I am trying to follow a similar method of transferring experience - I am leading a so-called “circle” on Java. The circle has no timetable, students come individually, get assignments, literature, and leave. Then they come again, show what they have done, I correct and give the next task. Thus, the best of them in 1-2 months can realize things that are interesting to them in Java. Of course, with my help.

What is so good about it:

1. Only very well motivated people can work offline. Anyone who just has an abstract desire does not come.

2. Motivation helps to absorb well the material independently and adequately relates to the enormous number of my corrections. (I want to note that the motivation here is a thousand times more important than the abilities, because it ensures the performance).

3. People have the opportunity to develop as fast as they can.

What is wrong with it (except that it takes time):

1. We have to repeat the same mistakes to everyone. (Well, at least someone would come up with some kind of original mistake!) It takes a lot of time. (I’m thinking about writing something like a memo or a self-help book, but I’m still not ready for it. And students are rarely able to perceive such things.)

2. I do not know yet what is so bad about it.

Here is such an experience.
If someone read to here and can share a similar experience, you are welcome. If someone has constructive criticism or suggestions, also you are welcome.

PS: PPNH.
UP: moved to "Education 2.0"
UP: The positive aspects of the university still include: the transfer of professional information between students and the development of the brain.