The Instigator
Nadinsquaw
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Adison1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Specialist approach to education

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2017 Category: Education
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 221 times Debate No: 105303
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Nadinsquaw

Pro

I think that the goal of education is, first of all, to prepare good specialists. When educational institutions are focused on humanistic education the result can be more than lamentable. In such a case, society gets well-educated people who know a little bit of everything. Definitely, they are all-around intellectually developed people but what society needs today is more specialists who can bring a palpable progress to it. Of course, we all want to be versatile people. However, the reality states quite different demands: employers do not need philosophers and poets. They do not employ people only because they can eloquently express their thoughts. They employ professionals. To my mind, when you receive humanistic education, you miss your chances on a labor market. However, when you do not squander your energies and instead focus on one field, you bring much benefit to yourself, to the field and to society in general.
Adison1

Con

Whilst I do see where you are coming from and it's true the education system is old. A pure-specialist program won't work that well. After all let me ask you what would you rather do as a kid, Physical Education which all the "cool" kids are doing or going into programming were you see all the "nerds"? If anything such a system would emphasise on such stereotypes and probably encourage bullying too be more common as people wouldn't understand the different fields and how they work. Not only that but it would also cost the goverment probably a bit to hire specialists to teach EVERY school and EVERY subject in your country. Not even including that the equipment schools have to buy would be extremely different for all the fields therefore meaning for the more popular fields- they might have to buy poor equipment. I have a few decent points I can argue against this but until those are mentioned the two main points are- the money and financial side of things and stereotypes being pushed further encouraging some fields to get bullied.
Debate Round No. 1
Nadinsquaw

Pro

Of course, the point about the financial side of the question that you made, may baffle anyone starting from a common person and ending with the government. However, it is always a matter of prioritizing. Isn't it true that the sphere of education worth adequate and even excessive financing? I guess, it is since education is a driving force of any country. If you want something to exist in this world, you have to invest in it. It's an extra point when financing is excessive but it doesn't HAVE to be. Schools don't need extra expensive brand new equipment in order to produce highly-qualified specialists. Unfortunately, the presence of such equipment at schools does not guarantee the quality of education. Another point that you have made concerns bullying. In the matter of fact, specialized education does not cause bullying. Bullying may exist at any school with any approach to education. It is all about manners or etiquette if you will. Certainly, it would be weird if we made our children learn strict etiquette rules since we don't live in the 18th century. Nevertheless, some restrictions to behavior should exist. And a burdensome responsibility of teaching children how to behave within society falls on no one else's but parents' shoulders. If, for some reason, parents ignore this responsibility, then no matter how much prestigious a school is or what new methods and techniques of teaching it offers, a child may fail to behave in a decent manner. Returning to the main point, I am supporting the specialist approach because I see that the final result worth implementing it. As for the cons, they are not insuperable. As the French say 'vouloir c'est pouvoir' - when there's a will, there's a way.
Adison1

Con

The cons may not be insuperable but does that make this the right idea for the system? Let's consider how much it would take for politicians to change the public school system which was barely changed in a decade. Another con is your relying on kids do decide what they want to do with their life from such a young age. As Brian once said "Make your life a masterpiece; imagine no limitations on what you can be, have or do". Yet this specialist system would be doing just that- do you believe if people don't choose something early on in their life they don't deserve to be educated in? You might always argue the point that they can always teach themselves but if what you're doing in School is interesting you so little every day of your life, then what's the point of even changing the system? After all if it truly all it does is restrict people and make them regret for choosing to dedicate their life to something, it's just a waste of money.
Debate Round No. 2
Nadinsquaw

Pro

Actually I never mentioned the fact that kids should decide what path to choose at an early age. What is necessary to do when kids are too little to decide is to offer tests (that would not cause emotional stress, of course, better in the form of a friendly talk with a kid and his or her parents) in order to determine what skills this or that kid has. I would suggest that these tests have to be non-binding, i.e. recommendatory in nature. Besides, kids may change their field of interest later if they wish, just like at university. And here's an extra pro - kids learn to be responsible. They would feel more involved and begin to THINK themselves about many things that concern their social life and studies, instead of leaving this task to their parents or teachers. They would stop being 'Another Brick in the Wall'. Imagine, you need to build two houses, one is with cement mortar and the other without it. In the first case, you seem to have no trouble. As for the second, I doubt you can built anything. The same goes for education: cement mortar are your inborn abilities and skills, whilst the bricks are new knowledge which you get at school. If this knowledge matches your inborn abilities, you'll be able to develop the latter. If not, well, remember the picture of the house built without mortar. This approach does not actually require whopping sums of money since you don't create something new, you just rearrange the old system. It is really worth money and effort. So, why not to take a challenge?
Adison1

Con

True I guess it does cause kids to become more responsible yet there is also the fact you completely forgot about a specialising approach isn't just one field. A businessman needs to know how to persuade, which requires literature skills. A designer might need to know math to make sure the scaling is accurate (when developing art for a website/game). A single field can only cover so much intelligence, no matter how much you specialise it. A single field can be split into many jobs- each potentially requiring skills coming from other fields as well. After all imagine the music world with only piano players- it would be dull and underdeveloped. That's a little bit like the education system you plan to create, one field will create a specialist but in real terms- not necessarily the best at adapting to the many environments the world can throw at you at any given moment. Sure, google exists but isn't what you said to make kids more responsible? If they can google anything to solve their problems in life, then a change in the education system is unneeded as one field would force many people to rely on sources like google for help even more than the modern day civilians do. Why exactly? Because everything they weren't taught in the field they were supposed to be taught in- they have to self-teach if it's important to that specific job. Well that's going to be my concluding arguments for why such an approach may not work.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by emsiblook 1 month ago
emsiblook
The current education system teaches kids pointless factual information that they'll never use again in the future. The current education system was introduced in the industrial age, in the Victorian times. The government aimed to prepare kids for factory jobs, which was needed at the time; and indeed, the system itself is very factory-like. Children are told to come into the class, sit down, not talk to anyone, open their textbooks, complete the questions, etc.. It's like a factory, very controlled. Because of this forced learning, children forget the information very quickly, because they are not as motivated or interested by what they are learning.

We need to give children more responsibility over their own education... children are naturally curious about the world around them. I would promote the Sudbury model; a school system with no predetermined syllabus; it allows children to do whatever they want during the school day. It has been proven that when people decide what to learn for themselves, they retain the subject to a much larger extent than if someone else decides what they should learn.(1)

This allows children to focus on a single or couple of things that they are really interested in; e.g. if they want to become a vet they look into learning about animals, and get work experience at a vet. Even if they socialise all day; this will enable them to develop these skills and become a salesperson as an adult. It is completely their responsibility and 42% of former sudbury students at a school were found to be in entrepreneurial roles or self-employed.(2)

I really doubt anyone could determine a child's specialist area rather than the child themselves.

1 Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). The paradox of achievement: The harder you push, the worse it gets. In J. Aronson (Ed.)
2 Greenberg, D., & and Sadofsky, M. Legacy of Trust: Life After the Sudbury Valley School Experience (1992) (Sudbury Valley School Press; Framingham, MA) pp. 249.
Posted by m.brussel92 1 month ago
m.brussel92
I agree with you, if we had educational institutions finding out what people are good at from an early age and only pushing that, we would have a great world of advanced specialists. While we still have specialists today, they have wasted a decade of their life in school learning all subjects, time they could have spent getting really good in their specialization.
No votes have been placed for this debate.