A Changing Educational Model

Recently, my little sister came home from school confused about something they had learned in math. It wasn't the method itself that confused her -- she could apply the method they had learned just fine. No, what confused her was the reason why it worked, and when she asked the teacher, the teacher blew her off, saying that it wasn't important to understand why it worked because on the tests, they would only need to plug and chug.

Today, while our math teacher was out, he had us read and respond to an excerpt from Professor Jo Boaler's What's Math Got to Do with It? Particularly because of stories like my little sister's or reports on how terrible our educational system is, this touched a nerve with me, and I started thinking about how this is a reaction to a change in the world.

For the last several decades, technology has been increasing steadily. This has had many implications for humans, changing how we work, how we communicate, and so forth. Technology has taken a key place in our lives. Additionally, the countries of East and Southern Asia have started accelerating their growth, and there are fears that the United States is falling behind those countries. One place in which that fear is particularly strong is the realm of education. Our students have been falling behind, especially in math and science, which does not bode well for the future.

And there is ample reason for concern. Falling educational standards vis-a-vis the rest of the world is a serious problem and must be addressed as such. However, as of late, the country's response to this change has largely been to emphasize the STEM fields at the expense of the humanities, and to do so badly. Instead of trying to focus on learning to innovate and be creative, as Professor Boaler points out, the United States largely focuses on the memorization and plug-and-chug aspects of the subject. And that is why you get stories like that of my little sister or stories of students that can't apply themselves to do the most basic of things. Those students have learned to only do one thing, not think about the methods more critically.

This reaction is, on the surface, logical. China et al. are becoming far stronger, and they have educational systems that are lauded as great, so to respond to the change, it would be a good idea to shift to their version of education, right? Unfortunately, there are some problems with this. The Asian model tends to focus very heavily on memorization, and while that does work for their needs (people to work in their manufacturing and engineering sectors, which are key to their economies), it would not work as well for America, which tends to have a far greater stake in being the innovators and coming up with the products that need to be produced. And this is where the money is. As Fareed Zakaria says in The Post-American World, the cost to build the iPhone is minimal. Most of the profits go to Apple, the innovators, not the overseas builders.

That is the model that America should be focusing on, not a model that emphasizes memorization and STEM only. We should be emphasizing critical thinking and innovation, using all fields, not just a select few that we think will be important. Yes, the Asian model works for Asia. But to respond to the growing power of Asia by trying to emulate them exactly is, while well-intentioned, an irrational and wrong response to the change.

Shakespeare, The 21st Century, and Change

It's very easy to view Shakespeare as something completely removed from modern society. I know I certainly did until a few years ago, and I know many people who still feel that way. However, despite what the dated language and culture may seem to imply, the central issue of Shakespeare is something that is still very relevant today. In many Shakespearean plays, the characters are pushed into a very significant change, and the remainder of the play is spent watching how they react to this change. That not only makes the plays extremely relevant to this blog, but it also makes the plays relevant to today's ever-changing world, in which people are pushed and left to react to the change.

One of the best examples of this push from a change happens in Hamlet. After Hamlet finds out that Claudius killed King Hamlet to take the throne and marry Gertrude, his entire reality and purpose in life has changed, and for the rest of the play, we are able to see how he reacts to this play. His reaction is to become obsessed with this change, letting it consume him and become an ever-growing part of who he was. What was most interesting, however, was his ability to, in his obsession, twist his mission. Hamlet's mission, as given to him by the late King Hamlet, was to kill Claudius. That was it.

Instead, over the course of the play, Hamlet's mission changes, turning into a mission to kill Claudius in a way that would not send him to heaven, then a mission to show his mother how terrible she was, then a mission to kill Claudius, but in the bloodiest way possible. Along the way, this obsession twists his view of the world, making him more paranoid and delusional, causing him to do irrational things like killing someone behind a curtain with no evidence it was Claudius.

This sort of a reaction might seem fairly unrelated to the modern world, but that kind of a reaction to a change is depressingly common. Granted, it may not be as violent as Hamlet's reaction, but quite often, changes can cause obsessions and refusals to look at reality in a more objective light. In other words, dramatic changes cause ideologues, and that is something easily seen, especially in politics. For example, the Tea Party, the extreme right-wing branch of the Republican Party, saw a major change with the Obama administration, especially with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and so, they became obsessed with it, making it their mission to repeal it by any means necessary, then eventually twisting that mission to oppose anything that didn't exactly meet their demands, all while being delusional enough to think they could get widespread support that way.

This isn't the only relatable example of change and reaction in Shakespeare, nor do all the examples deal with negative reactions. For example, Kent and France both had rational, intelligent, and well thought-out reactions to the changes they faced in King Lear, and famously, Capulet and Montague had surprisingly sane reactions to Romeo and Juliet's deaths. The point is, Shakespeare, though it may seem antiquated, is all about stories of change and reaction that are ever-present in our modern society, and to that end, it remains highly relevant in the 21st century.

The Conservative's Approach to Change

Conservatism, according to Wikipedia, is "a political and social philosophy [that] promotes retaining traditional social institutions." Of course, within this, there are a million and one ways to be a conservative. One can be a libertarian, a fiscal conservative, a reactionary, and so forth. Personally, I would classify myself as a moderate, run-of-the-mill conservative. However, in all of these branches of conservatism, there is a common thread: an aversion to change. This aversion to change has significant implications for our political situation and discourse, and to that end, it is extremely important.

One of the biggest reasons for this aversion to change is a preference for security. Conservatives tend to see a world in which traditional institutions, while not perfect, have led to stability and growth, and thus are beneficial and should not be abandoned willy-nilly. Again, there are many brands of this claim. I, for one, prefer slow changes so we can easily evaluate if we like the course we are taking and take steps back if necessary. Others, like reactionaries, might be so in favor of traditional stability that they think we've gone too far and want to go back to the way things used to be. Regardless, the preference for the security of the traditional or current state is a constant.

This attitude is in stark contrast with the attitude taken by liberals, who tend to more believe that change is good and necessary. The reason for the conservative's hesitance with regards to change likely draws from a number of sources. First of all, there is a large self-interest component. The conservative likely things don't need to change very much because in the current situation, the conservative is better off than in another proposed situation. Secondly, there is a large cultural component to conservatism. There is a reason that most of the southern United States, for example, is largely red. It's not because everyone in the south is much more affluent than other parts of the country (indeed, data seems to suggest otherwise), but rather, because there is a strong cultural tradition in that part of the country that strongly favors conservatism.

So in many ways, the conservative's aversion to change is a rational response, brought about by self-interest and cultural factors. Of course, as I've stated before, I'm a moderate conservative, so I can't fully step back and be objective in this regard. However, in politics, the problem lies in that aversion to change. Everyone, while they may not want quick or significant change, has something that they want to change. Indeed, that's one of the first things we learn in economics: wants are unlimited, and people want to change their situations to get those things that they want. Therefore, it becomes easy to target people who want to avoid quick change; such people are quickly characterized as the people who want to make sure that people don't change their situations to get what they want.

And to a large degree, those attacks work. And yet, it is clearly a rational response to the changes in society to be a conservative, depending on one's personal beliefs and situation. Usually, most people who make that point are dismissed as "right-wing loonies" (a phrase I will admit to using regularly). As a society, we often are so focused on our desire for change that we demonize those who don't agree with us. In doing so, however, while we are making our own rational responses to the change, we discourage others from making their own rational responses, and that's unfortunate.

The State of the Union

On Tuesday night, President Obama delivered his fifth State of the Union address, which can be read here. In many ways, this address followed the typical pattern for State of the Union addresses -- touching on a little bit of everything, making arguments for certain policies, and so forth. But in many ways, this State of the Union was different from ones in years past.

To begin with, the President had a far more modest plan than in years past. As a moderate conservative, I was somewhat surprised to find that, for much of the speech, I didn't disagree with President Obama, and I only sharply gasped a few times. This is in contrast to years past, when the President has made far more bold claims and proposals.

Secondly, I took note of how much the President emphasized that he was willing to essentially abandon Congress in his quest to get his agenda done. In years past, that had not been the case -- President Obama, to go along with his ambitious proposals, needed congressional action, and so he had pushed hard for such action. This year, however, he essentially said that if Congress would not help him, he would do everything he could to circumvent them.

Of course, there are several confounding variables, if you will, that would make a difference in the President's address, but that's exactly the point of this post. The President recognized that a change occurred, and he moved to best position himself to take advantage of the change. Since last year, several things have happened. the President's credibility, to some degree, has fallen, especially in light of the Edward Snowden affair and the ensuing scandal involving the NSA. Additionally, the President recognizes an even greater shift in public opinion away from the GOP, especially in the aftermath of the shutdown and the partisan gridlock that had taken over Congress. He recognizes that, in light of the changed political situation, he will be better served saying that he can get things done without Congress than he would be by making bold proposals, which helped him before.

And so, the President made a rational response to the change, deciding to respond by setting himself up as a credible alternative to the GOP and congressional gridlock. This might seem like a rather obvious move, and it is, but such a rational reaction is one that's often not seen, especially in politics. An excellent example: the Tea Party Republicans. The Tea Party's response to these changes is largely to hold the course, pretend that the changes don't exist, and continue on as before. Obviously, that response is completely irrational to any objective person, but the fact of the matter is, unlike the President, many of the Tea Party Republicans simply have shown they cannot rationally respond to the changing political climate, and that outlook is something that could have severe implications for the GOP in the future.