|
|
|
|
|
|
by jriddycuz
5341 days ago
|
|
|
tl;dr: If survey classes actually connected the dots, it would promote intelligent students without challenging them to persevere, and ultimately favor the development of bright but undisciplined generalists. --- While I relate to some of the cynicism of the essay, I think this is an emergent sociological phenomenon rather than something that the designers of curricula necessarily intend to do. Sure, there's a need to weed out students who can't hack it later due to a lack of intelligence or persistence, but the idea that course designers set out to build people into student-drones who blindly memorize information because "that's what society needs" is hogwash. This is a result of a need to serve a broad range of students with a limited supply of teaching talent. I'm confident most college departments would love to get highly intelligent students intensely interested in their field of study. Showing them how to connect all the dots could open a window towards a genuine love for the field at hand, turning a jaded generalist into a dedicated scholar. While persistence may still be an issue with some of these students, showing them how amazing and connected a field can be could encourage them to specialize in this fascinating study. Few things inspire as much persistence as deep fascination. The crappy survey classes probably do more harm than good in turning away potentially excellent students from the material. |
|
|
From my reading, he is suggesting that academia has evolved this way over time, due to the greater culture of the, as DFW would put it, "day to day trenches of adult life."