r ranson wrote:The things I learned in higher learning that I value most:
- How to use a library
- To see something new and ask questions
- how to evaluate and rank information sources
- How to ask the librarian for information even if you think they wouldn't know it, they probably do. Librarians know a scary amount of stuff.
- how to RTFQ (read the fucken question)
- The Ability to Learn
I didn't need to go to school to learn these things and sadly, most of my fellow students didn't learn these things.
The SKIP programme seems like a much more affordable place to learn these skills.
Same...... In retrospect, there could be a program designed that achieved the same in much less time and resources. But that would rob most universities of their bread and butter, yes? It seems strange on the face of it, that one needs to learn (a) "How to RTFQ", (b) "To see something new (i.e. take the time to *observe*) and ask questions", and (c) "How to use a library" and its twin flame of "how to evaluate and rank information sources". I was fortunate after graduate school to have a mentor to really teach me better how to do (a). In fact, his superiors hated him for it because they were always giving him orders when he already had the correct answer....from above *THEM*. He knew very well how to go to the source and both ask and answer questions clearly and correctly and I benefited to the extent of my ability under his guidance. Observation is something I really needed to coach new students on. Invariably, they would perform an experiment and immediately ask me if it "worked". My first question always was "what do you see happening?" followed by "what question were we asking?", and "How did we set up the experiment in order to test the question?". Absolutely, some people have this curiosity already, but a suprising number do not or have lost it for one reason or another. As for (c), before Google there were the hard copies in the library of something called "Biological Abstracts" (the field I studied) which were produced on a schedule and documented in shorthand all of the published scientific literature in a given field for the past month or two. At the end of each year, a master volume was published to replace the monthlies. You got good at sifting through the abridged titles for keywords that were relevent to your topic of study, then needed to track down the full abstract of the article to see if you really wanted to bother tracking down the journal and visiting the Xerox machine. If it was really important, you submitted paperwork (remember that stuff?! ;-) ) through inter-library loan so that some other college or university could send you the Xeroxed copy from their library. All of which led to the development of mental evaluation tools for deciding if the paper data was really 'robust' and worth incorporating into your research plans and models.
But I agree that all of this could be learned through a different venue of training and inquiry. Certainly is sounds like Wheaton Labs does much of this already. Might there be something like "accreditation" that arises for such curriculums for entities like Wheaton Labs that gives others confidence in the training received? Isn't there some sort of licensing needed for homeschooling or am I not remembering that correctly? At any rate, good comments r and I hope this may help in the discussion or vision for the topic.