Viser arkivet for stikkord education
You need to be tall to be a basketball player. But the tallest person is not automatically the best basketball player. So why is height a prerequisite for being a professional basketball player? Why do we not simply test their basketball skills and hire them based on only skill, instead of first taking out the potential great basketball players who are short?
A more important question to society is; The person with the best grades from school is not automatically the best at doing the job, why do we then hire people based on grades, and not their direct ability to do the job? It seems counterproductive to hire people with the highest grades and most education, who will demand most pay, when they will not automatically be the best at doing the job.
The rational thing to do is to test the ability of the candidates to do the job, or even train the candidates to do the job, and then hire the person with the highest number from this equation X/Y=Z, where X is skill at doing the job, and Y is the amount of pay he/she demands to do that job. 2 workers who combined do less work than 1 really good worker can be best if they put together demand less pay than the really good worker. Especially when you factor in that pay goes up by a few percents every year, while the ability of the person to do the job can double and quadruple in a year. Anything you do 1750 hours a year (8766 hours in one year) will be something you get good at if you want to or not.
To summarize. Test candidates’ ability to do the job directly, not indirect measures like grades or education, then ask them what pay they would consider fair enough for them to not think about it most of the year. Then take one and divide by the other, and hire the ones with the highest answer (most skill divided by least pay). Especially in places where hiring the wrong people is as expensive as in Norway it is important to hire based on direct evidence for ability to do the job, not indirect evidence. IQ, nationality, language even, education, grades, hobbies, age, structuredness, health, creativity, motivation, social abilities etc, it is all indirect evidence for ability to do the job. The pay is what will be largely unchanged, their ability to do the job will increase automatically.
It is completely backwards that we first teach children Newtons laws of physics, folk- “common sense” and day to day knowledge that is not directly what we want them to know best. For example, how does Newtons laws help someones ability to learn quantum physics? I would argue it is less than helpful to our ability to learn quantum physics to first learn Newtonian physics and knowledge about the day to day world we generally consider “common sense”.
The real definition of “common sense” should be what is actually sensical, like how the universe works, which is quantum physics and relativity. The folk-version of “common sense” is that quantum physics is none-sensical, that quantum physics is not logical, yet, it is so, it is a fact, atoms function that way, so it should be considered “common sense” to everyone, even if it takes effort to understand it, even if it culturally counter-intuitive today. Because when you understand quantum physics, everything makes sense, like of course you don’t kick a dense object like a rock even though its mostly empty space, because the rock has the energy released in a nuclear bomb so moving it has to add a lot of energy, energy your toe might not be able to handle. Electricity, magnetism, movement, chemistry, weather, geology, nuclear physics, biology, evolution, history, evolutionary psychology, logic, reason, it all benefits greatly, perhaps most, from just quantum physics and relativity (quantum physics is everything, except gravity, pretty much).
It is then a real question, why don’t we teach the most important stuff, that which explains everything we know, first? A child learns to speak in 2 years, and can understand chess at age 3, surely a child can understand quantum physics and its mathematical formula that fits on a pencil before the child begins school. We should at least try a few thousand methods for learning quantum physics to children before we say it is impossible. Having the understanding of quantum physics engrained in everyone from an early age would be a better economic and intellectual stimulus package than there ever has been, because the quantum world is the future.
Nano-technology is chemistry by using quantum mechanics to find conditions where materials like carbon nanotubes self-assemble from normal pencil-carbon, and carbon nanotubes are the strongest material there ever will exist in the universe due to quantum physics. Microscopic engines, microscopic machines, intelligent drugs, super-computers that make the computers of today look like triple A batteries compared to a nuclear powerplant, self-assembling products, self-designing products, are just some of the benefits we will see from quantum physics over the next century. But it won’t happen if we go over two decades before we learn quantum physics, and if some go without understanding quantum physics all their lives. It would be like we today had people that went two decades or more of their lives without the ability to add and subtract, the world would not be able to function if that was the case (the simplest economics would be out of reach, even farmers that grow all their own food need a basic understanding of economics today, and that includes basic mathematics).
The world of the future will depend on everyone knowing their quantum mechanics and relativity. If not by heart in their head, they must be able to understand it equally well as we do adding and subtracting on paper today. Even if we can not add and subtract everything in our heads, we can calculate it on paper, and know the entire causal logic behind what we are doing, and why the result is what it is, and even if we add and subtract thousands of numbers, we still understand it even if we can’t imagine the numbers.
That 2+2 equals 4 was not a part of folk common sense at one time, but it became so, now we need to make M*C^2 equals E common sense, as well as the slightly more complex quantum mechanics formulas.
Quality over quantity is a common expression when it comes to how long people want to live. But if the quality of life is so low being alive in itself is not enough, there may be a problem, not with what you own, what you do or what you consume, but how good you are at living, which comes from what you know.
It takes 14 years to become a neurosurgeon, after 4 years of college. So it takes 18 years to become so good at neuroscience that they trust you to use the knowledge how you see fit, to operate in someones brain. How long do you learn before you are trusted to use the knowledge how you see fit in order to decide what you want to do for a living, where you want to live, how long you want to live, who you want to live with and so forth? 18 years. How long do you think it actually takes to become as good at being alive as a neurosurgeon is at operating in your brain? I leave that to you to think about, so you can decide for yourself how much education you need/needed to become a Doctor in the scientific field of being alive.
You are what you know, so I link to the best documentary series I have found, and ask if you have ever seen someone among the best in the world in something, being bored.
Nothing ever comes from nothing. No invention is invented without most of its ingredients allready being invented. James Watt did not start the age of the steam engine, he merely tried to repair a steam engine made by Thomas Newcomen and stumbled upon a way to make it more effecient. The first artificial fertilizer was a failed attemt at making artificial diamonds, the first artificial dye was a failed attemt at making artificial quinine, todays strong steel was first made in glass furnaces, the electric spark was first used to find “bad air” because bad air was at the time what people thought malaria came from (“mal aria” is italian for “bad air”) and the perfume-spray is where the car manufacturers got their fuel injection system.
How then, can we expect that we will continue to make alot of new inventions and world-saving technologies when everyone get the same education, the same information, the same ingredients for making something new, did you invent something? Did any of your classmates? Did anyone in your school invent something? Did they add to scientific knowledge? Did any of you solve a problem? Did any of you figure out how to live a little bit longer? And if they invented something or added to scientific knowledge, did they need the information they got in school to invent that thing or to figure out that bit of scientific knowledge? And if they did use something they learned in school, did they only need a tiny bit of information from a single class in a single semester or did they need all of it? And when the people that decided what to teach in school looked through all the information, and obviously didn’t see ingredients that together could be put together to invent something world-saving or game-changing bit of scientific knowledge or technological invention (they didn’t invent something or publish a scientific paper based on what they decided schools should teach), how can we expect it will make others that learn this information invent something great? If the people that decide what schools should teach never gets an epiphany, never invents something new and never adds to scientific knowledge or scientific culture, based on what they decide schools should teach, then they obviously haven’t chosen the right information and way to teach.
School, all the way from the beginning, to the doctorate level, should be filled with good ingredients for invention, scientific progress, abstract questioning and cultural growth. There are those things we need to know to function in the world, like to add and multiply and to read and write, but when have you ever seen someone invent something because they remembered how to write a word or because they remembered what the name of a bird or cloud-formation is? When did you see someone figure out something new about the universe because they remembered when Napoleon fought a battle or figured out food supply was a military problem? When did you last see a physicist invent a new formula of mathematics that explains something about the universe, because he or she remembered how to solve an equation just by following the guidelines of how to solve a certain formula and not actually understanding the mathematics?
So how can we figure out what to teach, how to teach, so we get the true potential from education? I haven’t got a clue, yet. But be aware, however we teach the kids it better be good, because it is todays kids that will take care of you when you are old and if they lack a large enough perspective of time they’ll probably just dig a hole and toss old people into it not knowing they themselves will go there before their time. Can’t say I find it conceptually much different from what the previous generations has done to the future generations through pollution and all the rest of the shortsighted ideas that work extremely well, for just a while. I for one is extremely disapointed that you have spent all this money in ways that do not make us live longer, just because so many of you believe you’ll live forever after you die (did you not also teach us that one chicken in ones hands is better than ten hens on the roof?!).
But this blogpost is long enough, be glad old people; that it is seemingly impossible to travel back in time, if it wasn’t impossible we’d all be in big trouble.