Good and Bad Learning

Mac Guy Justin Long will always be Warren Cheswick to me as well.

It's nice to see I wasn't the only one to see deeper meaning in what on the surface appears to be doing little more than taking Old School to an even more ridiculous level.

I'd like to preface my comments by stating that I really enjoyed this article and that I value what Pam (and therefore Bill too) has to say. In the spirit of vigorous intellectual debate (and not flamebaiting), I give you my comments...

> Good and Bad Learning
> Bill Moseley, Pamela Rivers
>
>
> The beginning of the movie finds Mac Guy, aka Bartleby, in
> a desperate situation. His parents want him to go to
> college, but unfortunately, Bartleby has been unsuccessful
> in his attempts to get into college - in fact he's been
> rejected by all eight schools he applied to. The first 30
> minutes follow Bartleby and his friends as they deal with
> their upcoming futures, or lack of them. For various
> reasons, all but one of Bartleby's friends seem to be in
> the same boat, with no real plans for the future after
> high school. And those first 30 minutes are pretty bad, in
> terms of cinematic quality. (Bill disagrees with this.)
> It does, however, set the context for the rest of the
> movie by characterizing traditional education as what
> amounts to a calculated system of exclusivity that self-
> perpetuates by keeping different people and ideas out of
> the mainstream mix.

Not all schools are like that - come on! State schools are MUCH more inclusive than, say, Ivy League schools. I look at who gets allowed into UW Oshkosh or even some smaller less demanding UW institutions, and pretty much if you're alive and have finished high school you can get in. You're doing exactly what you complain the schools are in evaluating students: you are tarring them all with the same brush.

> While Bartleby and his friends are in the midst of
> creating their fake college to fool their parents about
> where they will be spending their next four years, we meet
> the dean of Harmon College, who makes every effort to
> preserve academic tradition. Anthony Heald, playing the
> dean of the college, characterizes the role of his college
> in the whole of the institution of education with:
> "Rejection: That's what makes a college great. The
> exclusivity of any university is judged primarily by the
> number of students it rejects." While this character
> couldn't be a more two dimensional bad guy if you rolled
> him flat with a steam roller, his megalo-maniacal attempt
> to keep knowledge in and ignorance out does paint an
> interesting picture of the end goal of today's Western
> systems of education (although few in education would
> admit it).

I don't think few would admit it - it's clear that's how lots of private schools work. The point those schools are trying to make *is* to emphasize the exclusivity so that if you get in you know you were either:

a) academically gifted

b) athletically gifted

c) financially gifted

Your diatribe against exclusivity is sensible only if all schools are like that, but since they're not, you're trying to force the same standard behaviour on all schools - how is that serving the purpose of the different kinds of students and parents?

You might as well rant and rave about the "exclusivity" of an Olympic track and field team - the point of the team isn't to allow just anyone in, even if they all have different skills and ways of, say, running - the point of such a team is to win. Different teams, different goals, different membership.

> Meanwhile, our hapless high school grads are busy
> accidentally creating a real college that really admits
> students, much to their surprise. Admittedly, this is all
> very implausible. If you want to see flaws in Bartleby's
> plans, you don't have to look very far. You also have to
> ignore or enjoy a certain amount of sophomoric humor to
> get through the film's entirety. After the first 30
> minutes, I was really wondering what my friend Bill had
> gotten me into and then Bartleby steps on the auditorium
> stage at the South Harmon Institute of Technology and
> begins to break the news to several hundred students who
> mistakenly believed they had been admitted to a real
> college, when in fact, they had been mislead by an overly
> realistic hoax. However, he is cut short by the grateful
> words of several students who had been rejected by
> traditional institutions, just as he had been. Bartleby
> finds sudden inspiration, and winds up giving a moving
> speech about finding acceptance and making education open
> to anyone who wants to learn.
>
> I don't know what the creators of this movie intended when
> they made it. I doubt the purpose was to change the
> educational system or to make any real points about
> education reform. However, the purpose of the film is
> really secondary to the message that appears between the
> lines of sophomoric dialogue. I read a review that argued
> that the point of the movie was to show that it's more fun
> to hang around with slackers and losers than
> academic-types. Perhaps there was such a shallow target in
> mind, but I would recommend giving more weight to
> Bartleby's speech at the end of the movie when he applies
> for accreditation for the school. He says that schools rob
> students of their creativity and their passion.

Unfair to say that all schools rob students of their creativity and passion. Some students have very little passion to learn - I see it and hear about it a lot. As for creativity, that's all well and nice, but if a student can't learn the basic foundations of a particular subject matter, the student ends up reinventing the wheel or standing on the shoulders of midgets. You explain to me how a student who doesn't understand basic math can perform feats of pure mathematics?

Sure there is the occasional genius you hear about who can do those feats from the age of 10, but that's not the population the schools are trying to meet the needs of.

> It may seem harsh to say that schools kill creativity. And
> if you want to hear it done in a more eloquent and
> slightly funnier way, check out this site. Children learn
> in school that flowers can't be black,that letters must be
> written within the lines.

What about art class?

Re: letters, if I can't read what a student is trying to write, what good is it? The basic skills must be taught and absorbed. Everyone eventually moves on to cursive, and some (artsies) move on to calligraphy and abstract art.

> Children learn that there are right answers and there are
> wrong answers and they will pay a price for saying the
> wrong ones.

Nice stereotyping - any educator knows that learning is a process, and the process involves asking questions and making mistakes that can be learned from.

In a test setting, of course, it's different - but that's what some testing is for: proving that the student has absorbed the basic foundation skills and knowledge. NCLB is a problem of course if that's the only thing that drives the educator and the school.

> They learn that it is easier to say nothing and risk
> nothing than to put themselves on the line.

Depends on the educator.

> You need only walk into an elementary classroom to see
> this happening. Walk into a high school classroom and the
> problem is magnified. A student who is not sure of the
> answer would rather die than attempt to answer a question.

Because, I'm sorry, these students are often mouthy unhappy cynical people who care more about peer judgement and who do not belong in a university.

> Taking a risk isn't even feasible. That desire was drummed
> out of a child's head a long time before, and by the time
> they set foot in a college classroom (if they ever do),
> they learn that learning and knowledge are limited
> resources, that learning is not fun, and that instructors
> are people who first throw knowledge at us, then judge us
> to see if it sticks.

As someone who has gone through extremely advanced technical schooling I would say that it is absolutely true that the most challenging (ie. interesting) material I have learned has been at the hands of demanding instructors who do exactly that: they teach you the basics, then throw more and more at you to see where you reach your limits. What they do when you are at your limits distinguishes them. MIT does that and lets you sink because that is what MIT represents: the most absolutely top notch semi-geniuses. You graduate from MIT and everyone knows you are extremely sharp. Whether that is what you want in a person is an entirely different matter. Again: different schools, different outcomes. At Waterloo I wasn't hired by Microsoft because I wasn't like the students they hired: extremely quick but not particularly wide ranging thinkers. That's what Microsoft wanted, and that's what they hired, in droves, and now look at them wallowing after having reinvented multiple wheels over the years. Caveat emptor.

>
> "Accepted" has another message which really comprises the
> majority of the movie, and it is that people should be
> allowed to spend their time learning what they want to
> learn.

Come on! Within certain constraints maybe. If a class purports to teach economics, does it make sense for a student to want to go off in an entirely different direction? If the instructor has the time and resources to support student projects that include application of economics, then sure that is a different question. You are making a lot of blanket statements.

> When Bartleby starts South Harmon I.T., he goes to the
> prestigious Harmon College to figure out how college
> works. He talks to his friend who is struggling to get
> classes she needs while she muddles through classes that
> are not meaningful to her. Bartleby goes to the "dean" of
> his made-up university (Lewis Black!) who is himself
> disappointed with the sad realities of education, to find
> out how to design a college experience for his
> students. When Black doesn't give him a clear-cut answer,
> Bartleby decides to ask the students themselves what they
> want to learn. And therein comes the crux of the
> movie. Instead of studying isolated facts and subjects
> that have no meaning for them, the students at South
> Harmon Institute of Technology study what they want
> to. Those subjects include some things that educators may
> not see as worthwhile, including skateboarding, clothing
> design and "walking around, thinking about stuff," but the
> students of South Harmon are quick to defend their subject
> matter by revealing the value of learning that takes place
> in authentic contexts.

You are making the assumption (and it is a movie, remember) that you are going to get a large group of students who were all somehow rejected by normal institutions yet are all somehow imbued with a passion for self-directed learning. I respond by calling "bullshit": if these students really were goal oriented and self-directed, they would have gotten into any number of traditional schools.

>
> Bartleby makes lots of salient points in this movie and
> many of them come in the last scene when the school is
> fighting to remain open. Bartleby tells the group of
> educators assembled that they don't need formal teachers
> or textbooks or fancy campuses. Real learning can take
> place without all of those things as long as there are
> people who want to better themselves.

I look at some of the students who wander around campus and I hear their gripes on occasion. Some are just not ready to learn - they have a bad attitude, bitching about a Czech instructor's accent ("Why can't he speak perfect English?"). These people need to go to a technical college or just get out and find manual labour. Come back when they have grown up. These students do not have the attitude of wanting to better themselves; they want to blame others for their own failings.

> We are also reminded of the fact that everyone has
> something valuable to share or teach.

Nice trite statement. I could teach you my particular technique for clipping my toe nails, but is that something that really advances human knowledge? Is that knowledge relevant in a college setting?

> The most powerful scene in the movie is the one that shows
> the students of South Harmon standing up in defense of
> this reality. These are points often lost on educators. I
> have heard one professor after another talk about
> classrooms where no learning takes place. This gives the
> impression that learning doesn't occur unless there is an
> instructor present doling out knowledge. The truth is,
> learning is always taking place. Whether it's the learning
> we as educators desire is another story entirely.

This is likely true, sadly, for a large number of educators, but in any large group you will have (significant?) minorities of less than good people.

>
> We as a society seem to have decided that there is good
> learning and bad learning - learning that we value and
> learning we see as a waste of time. The truth is, students
> will learn what they are motivated to learn. They can be
> motivated by a passion to learn and a desire to better
> themselves as they do in the movie, or they can be
> motivated to learn because they want good grades or don't
> want to disappoint their parents.
>
> "Accepted" may not be Oscar-worthy, or even remotely
> realistic. But intentionally or not, it has something to
> say about education and learning:
>
> 1. Learning should be available to everyone regardless of
> any personal factor.

Within reason - they have to be goal oriented.

> 2. Knowledge is not a scarce resource - instead, it is a
> resource that grows more abundant the more it is shared.

Perhaps, but again it has to be relevant somehow.

> 3. Learning should be set in the context of the individual
> learner.

There is a limit to resources and time available - so your statement needs to reflect the compromise that tax payers are simply not willing to spend double what they currently spend. You can't do what you ask if there are 30 or more students in a class.

> 4. An ideal educational system strives to be inclusive -
> To find a space for people who don't fit the mold.

My university had independent studies programs. I know UW Oshkosh has one or more too. In fact, my program (Systems Design Engineering), while being one of the hardest to get into, specifically catered to students who did NOT fit the standard engineering mold. Many of us were a lot more interesting than the ones who went into Electrical or Mechanical, for example.

>
> 5. Everyone has something valuable to teach.

Again, very trite. You tell me what a high school drop out has to teach me about computer science. There may be occasional nuggets of insight, I'll admit, but enough to constitute an entire semester's worth of the teaching of the fundamentals?

> 6. The culmination of all learning need not be a degree,
> as we currently recognize it.

Of course it doesn't have to be a degree - lots of people don't get a university degree but do very well in life. The problem is likely the expectation that all people should get a degree, even if they're going to go into business for themselves (for example). In my view, this is the dumbing down of a university degree: the idea that UW System institutions need to cater to this ever widening range of potential students and eventually grant them a degree (by God, ANY degree, at any price - multiple failures, bad attitude, low intellectual aptitude - just grant them a degree because that is the basic criterion of success of UW System - how many degrees granted, retention, etc.). In the past very few students went to university, and universities were geared towards that population; now, state institutions have to be all things to all people.

> At a time where America's education system is in a state
> of crisis, perhaps we should listen.

There was a recent New Yorker or Atlantic Monthly article about this. The US education system has always been the scapegoat, since the time it was created. No other institution is asked to do more for more people, and everyone talks about it being in a state of crisis. It's done very well so far for the US economy and standing in the world, no?

> At the very end of the movie, a conversation between the
> dean of Harmon College and Bartleby characterizes the
> problem in pursuing education reform: Dean: Your phony
> school demeans real colleges everywhere. Bartleby: Why?
> Why can't we both exist? You can have your grades and your
> rules, and your structure and your ivory towers, and we'll
> do things our way. Why do we have to conform to what you
> want? Dean: Your curriculum is a joke, and you, sir, are
> a criminal. Bartleby: You know what? You are a
> criminal. You rob these kids of their creativity and their
> passion. That's the real crime. Bartleby then turns to
> the crowd of parents and students, and the accrediting
> board. He poses an important question for us to consider:
> Did the system work for you? Not in the sense of our
> society's definition of success, but in terms of
> fulfilling personal goals and passions, and enabling you
> to become what you want to be. It is long past the time
> to begin thinking differently about success, education and
> learning. It is time to abandon exclusivity, conformity
> and rejection in favor of creativity, passion and
> inclusiveness in education. It is time to put a little bit
> of South Harmon Institute of Technology into our
> education. Be aware, though. If you try, then you should
> expect the same sort of fear-driven opposition that
> Bartleby and his friends encountered. The truth is,
> schools like South Harmon can't easily exist alongside
> "traditional" schools because they threaten the very
> existence of what we have come to call "tradition."

Oh COME ON - many schools exist that do not jam knowledge down students' throats. For one thing, the US has an unparalleled plethora of small liberal arts colleges that differ fundamentally from the super advanced technical universities like the one I went to.

Good article, but you're tilting at windmills. There are demons out there but you can't say all the windmils are demons.

I really liked this movie. I'm glad to see others saw the good points in it too.

Good points. I'm glad you made them. I have taken time off from college twice, and I'm still working on my undergrad, approaching year number 6. I completely agree. I am a second-semester junior, but I still haven't taken any classes I've really enjoyed, or part of my creative focus. Liberal arts is one of the worst things in academia today.
I was happiest when I was studying on my own in the public library, rather than when I am in college. But I'm getting my B.A. so I can have a better resume.
Thanks for the controversial, but realistic words.

Looking at your six points of a good school, it sure sounds quite a bit like Montessori.

Wootalicious!

Of course there's stereotyping involved on both sides of this argument. No need to make a complete objective assessment of education, institutionalized or otherwise. Frankly, that's impossible.

Some people learn best in community. Some alone. Some learn best in freeform studies. Some appreciate an outline. Some go back and forth between all the styles. The point is that the public educational system mostly doesn't support all the styles and the opportunity of choosing your own style.

I'm a trained elementary teacher and a mom of two young kids. They were passionate about learning to talk and to walk. I'm keeping them out of school to see what else they'll be passionate about learning. In the process they are teaching me a lot.

What you've just described in this movie pretty much sums up the attitudes of most parents who choose to homeschool, and more specifically unschool, their children. It's that exact squashing of creativity and individualism that leads people to turn away from public education and try a more organic, self-driven approach. Universities who welcome new students with homeschool educations cite their well-rounded approach to self-learning and their ability to think critically and without conformity as reasons why they expect those students to not just succeed, but to excel.

In a world where athletes with innate ability are awarded millions and teachers can barely make ends meet, what can one expect but to have inadequacy in the proffession that should bring about understanding? The matter really boils down to a societal morality that awards self-indulgence and negates sacrificial love. Then again, what can we expect from the nature of fallen humankind?