About the reform of education and humanities
What is called, about sore. The other day I took credit for first-year students. On the test it was necessary to write a small - 1-2 pages - written work on how the newly-made student sees himself in the specialty. Looking ahead, I will say that there were no special requirements. Clarity and vividness of thought would be enough.
What did I encounter?
To begin with, students have completely lost the ability to articulate their thoughts on paper. No, thank God, they have not forgotten how to put letters into words. But as you move from words to sentences, paragraphs and a holistic text, the meaning dissolves. That is, you can understand what the paragraph is about. But to understand what the whole text is about is virtually impossible.
At the same time, the authors of the works sincerely believe that they wrote full of deep meaning, “creative” (where did they manage to learn this word?) Texts. At the same time, the authors themselves cannot explain the main line of their opus. Of course, the situation is not so disastrous, as in Moscow State University, where freshmen-journalists filled up the dictation , but also rather unpleasant. Especially considering that the working tool is like among journalists. Tongue.
')
There is no logic, the ability to express thoughts on paper is not. But there are ambitions and "creativity." As if this “creativity” is worth something without elementary skills ...
What does education reform have to do with this? And the most direct.
The man writes the text. He, not afraid of the word, produces the product. And, as with any industry, external evaluation and social approval matter. If a person writes texts in the same way as AvtoVAZ makes cars, then the maximum that can be trusted is to put stamps on pieces of paper. The text of the stamp should be prepared by a more competent employee.
Labor assessment is important in any case, under any conditions. And the basis of understanding of an assessment is laid by parents (“what is good and what is bad”), and it develops just at school. In the process of learning. And the assessment performs not only the function of education (“I will put the two !!!! 111”), but also informs the student about how the society assesses his work. Accordingly, the evaluation system should be:
And what is happening now in school (and in the university)? In fact, a three-point rating system was fixed. 3 - “tried to do something”; 4 - “did, but with a few mistakes”; 5 - "made no mistakes." Who saw the unit last time?
It is clear that in such a situation an attempt to do something is sufficient. The quality of the attempt, in fact, does not matter. Because even if the work is done “satisfactorily” (but done), no social sanctions will follow. And why? But because society is oriented towards the middle level (purely statistically), and the average behavior is not rewarded, but it is not authorized in any way (the domestic auto industry, by the way, is a classic example of satisfactory work). And we note that in such a system, the middle and lower levels automatically coincide.
This state of affairs is supported by all sorts of "human-centered pedagogy" and "systems of developmental education." The activity of the child is approved initially. The quality of activity in this case does not matter.
What's next? And then, as Alice said, "Everything is more wonderful and more wonderful." The system eliminates the assessment from itself and begins to support itself already outside the school. And we have bizarrely decorated areas of knowledge, devoid of even the minimum criteria of truth.
Engineers are pretty obvious - made a wrong calculation - the bridge collapsed, the court, Siberia. But what about philosophers, sociologists, and psychologists who give rise to the concepts of one another more bizarre? In the natural sciences, you need to at least conduct an experiment in order to qualify for something. And in the humanitarian? "They don't even need erasers." Wrote more than others - the leading theorist. And the quality of writing nobody cares.
Known story with "Rooting" . But for some reason they are shyly silent about the fact that this is only the tip of the iceberg. The amount of nonsense, issued for science, has exceeded all limits. How do you, for example, have such a headline: “The archetype of a robe in Russian literature of the 19th century”. In our case, such use was dismissed immediately.
In the western social disciplines there is continuity. No new theory negates the previous one. In Russian philosophy, sociology and psychology, any doctoral dissertation begins with a passage like "all old approaches do not work, and only the new - AUTHOR - approach can shed light ..."
What is most funny, in the west, the social sciences have come close to the natural. No, philosophers write, of course, some texts about "deconstruction" and "postmodernism." That's why they are philosophers. But, for example, social psychology is an experimental science. Sociology has long ceased to exist without mathematical models. And who traditionally goes to these sciences? Those who did not like mathematics at the university.
Only physicists from the commission to combat pseudoscience of the RAS periodically say that it is time to stop raving. Who would listen to them, the Nobel laureates ... Only they can work ...
What did I encounter?
To begin with, students have completely lost the ability to articulate their thoughts on paper. No, thank God, they have not forgotten how to put letters into words. But as you move from words to sentences, paragraphs and a holistic text, the meaning dissolves. That is, you can understand what the paragraph is about. But to understand what the whole text is about is virtually impossible.
At the same time, the authors of the works sincerely believe that they wrote full of deep meaning, “creative” (where did they manage to learn this word?) Texts. At the same time, the authors themselves cannot explain the main line of their opus. Of course, the situation is not so disastrous, as in Moscow State University, where freshmen-journalists filled up the dictation , but also rather unpleasant. Especially considering that the working tool is like among journalists. Tongue.
')
There is no logic, the ability to express thoughts on paper is not. But there are ambitions and "creativity." As if this “creativity” is worth something without elementary skills ...
What does education reform have to do with this? And the most direct.
The man writes the text. He, not afraid of the word, produces the product. And, as with any industry, external evaluation and social approval matter. If a person writes texts in the same way as AvtoVAZ makes cars, then the maximum that can be trusted is to put stamps on pieces of paper. The text of the stamp should be prepared by a more competent employee.
Labor assessment is important in any case, under any conditions. And the basis of understanding of an assessment is laid by parents (“what is good and what is bad”), and it develops just at school. In the process of learning. And the assessment performs not only the function of education (“I will put the two !!!! 111”), but also informs the student about how the society assesses his work. Accordingly, the evaluation system should be:
- Understandable (“Why is he 59 points, and I am 58?”)
- Accurate enough to differentiate learners
And what is happening now in school (and in the university)? In fact, a three-point rating system was fixed. 3 - “tried to do something”; 4 - “did, but with a few mistakes”; 5 - "made no mistakes." Who saw the unit last time?
It is clear that in such a situation an attempt to do something is sufficient. The quality of the attempt, in fact, does not matter. Because even if the work is done “satisfactorily” (but done), no social sanctions will follow. And why? But because society is oriented towards the middle level (purely statistically), and the average behavior is not rewarded, but it is not authorized in any way (the domestic auto industry, by the way, is a classic example of satisfactory work). And we note that in such a system, the middle and lower levels automatically coincide.
This state of affairs is supported by all sorts of "human-centered pedagogy" and "systems of developmental education." The activity of the child is approved initially. The quality of activity in this case does not matter.
What's next? And then, as Alice said, "Everything is more wonderful and more wonderful." The system eliminates the assessment from itself and begins to support itself already outside the school. And we have bizarrely decorated areas of knowledge, devoid of even the minimum criteria of truth.
Engineers are pretty obvious - made a wrong calculation - the bridge collapsed, the court, Siberia. But what about philosophers, sociologists, and psychologists who give rise to the concepts of one another more bizarre? In the natural sciences, you need to at least conduct an experiment in order to qualify for something. And in the humanitarian? "They don't even need erasers." Wrote more than others - the leading theorist. And the quality of writing nobody cares.
Known story with "Rooting" . But for some reason they are shyly silent about the fact that this is only the tip of the iceberg. The amount of nonsense, issued for science, has exceeded all limits. How do you, for example, have such a headline: “The archetype of a robe in Russian literature of the 19th century”. In our case, such use was dismissed immediately.
In the western social disciplines there is continuity. No new theory negates the previous one. In Russian philosophy, sociology and psychology, any doctoral dissertation begins with a passage like "all old approaches do not work, and only the new - AUTHOR - approach can shed light ..."
What is most funny, in the west, the social sciences have come close to the natural. No, philosophers write, of course, some texts about "deconstruction" and "postmodernism." That's why they are philosophers. But, for example, social psychology is an experimental science. Sociology has long ceased to exist without mathematical models. And who traditionally goes to these sciences? Those who did not like mathematics at the university.
Only physicists from the commission to combat pseudoscience of the RAS periodically say that it is time to stop raving. Who would listen to them, the Nobel laureates ... Only they can work ...
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/77240/
All Articles