So there has been the growing problem of many western college students becoming coddled intolerant extremists,several high profile figures such as Jerry Seinfeld and President Obama have talked about how colleges aren't teaching students but instead insulating them from different points of view.
There is a belief among certain types of people that there is a certain mold people are supposed to fill. For example, a certain type of belief translates to a 'more ideal' person. Someone who believes, for example, that religion is a detriment to society is closer to being ideal.
These same people often like to believe that it is the goal of education to create more ideal individuals. Therefor, 'higher learning' should always include courses designed to produce people who have certain beliefs that are seen as being the 'ideal' belief system.
So how do we solve this problem?
Imo,Japan had the right idea by getting rid of the useless courses that are nothing but indoctrination seminars such as gender studies.That is the main source of why many college students end up being brain washed drones that have no real world experience.
Japan has its own education issues. Many of the Asian nations have very imposing education systems that are built around a form of indoctrination in its own right. I'm not sure it is really the model to follow, even if they have rejected course criterion.
I would argue that it is just as much of a problem that a single entity was able to declare gender studies as unnecessary and strike them from the course line-up. Just because I may agree with the lower valuation of the course does not mean it is good that there exists such a strong and centralized body controlling the course of education.
Get rid of that rubbish along with the teachers and professors who are interested in creating followers of whatever ideology they support than preparing students for the real world.
And how do you assess teachers for that?
How do you determine who is and is not creating 'followers' of an ideology? And what is the 'real world?'
The reality is that the 'real world' is a very diverse place. Very few of the jobs I have worked are 'classic' 8-5 jobs. I have also worked closely with quite a few people who have owned their own businesses, who have a varied set of challenges that change from week to week.
While I was working maintenance for a dialysis clinic, you never knew when you were going to get a call at 4 in the morning because something was not working and the nurses were freaking out. While there were shift hours posted for our department... reality was that we put in more than a few 24+hour shifts and had to make a lot of stuff up as we went. There was a lot of interface with medical directors and boards thereof - there was a lot of arguing with the bureaucracy of a corporate environment to get changes made where they needed to be made (you know, like making floors slope to the floor drain rather than having floor drains sitting above the rest of the floor... stuff that should be self-evident in its importance within a facility that processes 20,000 gallons of water every day).
When I worked in a factory, that was a lot of classic shift work. Show up at a certain time, fill a spot on the line, and go home when your shift is over unless tasked to stay by management. It didn't matter what job, specifically, you had - that was how your job functioned within the flow of factory work. I quickly learned a lot of the various positions and was often times re-tasked to move parts up through the line (if someone got pissed and walked out because that's how today's generation rolls, then I would pretty much have my hands on every part that came out of the mill that I would later assemble... on time). It wasn't glorious work - but it could be rewarding.
In the military... you're just a warm body. It doesn't matter what job you hold - you're there to do mostly whatever needs to be done and can be purposed for just about anything because it's 4PM on Tuesday. The more stuff you are certified to do, the more likely it is that something you are certified to do is needed to be done at the time and there is no one else around to do it (no good deed goes unpunished).
Since I've started working in fast food, it's not been reliable shift work. It isn't rigidly defined according to policy or procedure, but is completely dependent upon the people you work with and the people who your business revolves around serving.
And that has been the number one thing I've learned. The 'real world' is people - as diverse as they are. Even in something more rigid like a factory, where the focus is upon machines and process - there is a lot to be said for the degree to which people factor into the job.
Preparing people for the real world isn't the job of school. That is the job of parents and what people will naturally do as they are exposed to the real world. The role of college, and school, is to teach people a variety of skills that are valuable to the world (people) around them, so that they can offer skills and knowledge that is either unique or in a deficit.
Personally, I believe the number one thing we can do to improve education is to ban the government from having anything to do with it. When school comes with a voluntary price tag, people will begin to evaluate which schools end up having the most value for their children. When people are no longer being robbed at gunpoint to pay for a government indoctrination center, they will be more likely to donate to specific charities for children, or to the improvement of nearby schools.
The fact is that western education is incredibly inefficient and, in many cases, a form of taxpayer subsidized babysitting/child care that does little to actually teach children.
The fact is that most children would learn more by accompanying a parent to work each day, or spending time in the company of their mother, than they do from school in its current form. Only when kids begin to enter their teenage years are they really beginning to develop minds that really need to stray outside the limitations of the knowledge/experience of the kids' parents.
