What is the goal of education? do facts even matter at all?
My courses are currently: 11.124 (Looking Backwards and Forwards at Education), 11.129 (Educational Theory and Practice I), 12.420/601 (Physics and Chemistry of the Solar System/Essentials of Planetary Science), 21G.109 (Chinese Streamlined III), 21G.501 (Japanese I), 21M.600 (Intro to Acting).
Class is not about the notes, equations & other collected papers, but rather the unrecorded experiences, skills & memories.
The languages are going pretty much exactly as expected, minus the annoying emphasis on mainland China in 109. I was surprised to learn that 420 is actually a mostly-grad class (never done that before); it’s honestly a bit shocking how little they know about EAPS (admittedly a rather rare undergrad major). I thought I would care more about acting than I do, though it’s only the first week. (In particular, I thought I would need a lot of improvement and have tons to learn, but it actually seems relatively free-form and, while interesting, not a subject I think about much outside of class.)
What exactly is it that you like about being a teacher? is it the working with young people? the job security? helping others? the content knowledge involved? tinkering with learning and memory?
11.129 is probably my favorite class – and 11.124 is probably my least favorite. This is a surprising contrast; I’d have expected them to feel pretty similar.
“If you’re interested in teaching, you’re probably a social person in some way; you probably like meeting people, and that’s the best part, right?” -Course 11 professor, trying to be encouraging.
11.124 feels like a grade school class and altogether pretty silly – a friend quite aptly described it as “conformist and optimistic”. In class, we discuss all these questions about education, but I find it hard to take the instruction on good faith when this is easily the worst-taught and most-disorganized class I’m taking this year. Also, why am I so disdainful of most of my classmates? They seem so…underqualified? (I know, I know – who am I to talk! I just feel I wouldn’t want them as my teachers… This is probably mean and silly insofar as they probably think likewise of me…) I’m still not sure I can pinpoint it, but something about this class seems all wrong!
A metaphor for teaching: a glasses shop, offering a world of perspectives.
Compare 11.129, so far one of my favorite classes at MIT. My five peers here feel much more… real? They aren’t just dabbling; this is their goal, and I would be comfortable with any of them as my teacher already. The discussions seem more open-minded and grounded in reality – or are they just more aligned with my opinions and worldviews??
“The goal of education is not just to give people options to explore, but learning to learn and giving each student the ability to adapt to whatever life throws at them.”
11.129 also gives the impression of being a much more practical class, aimed at developing your classroom and teaching style (along with introducing helpful heuristics about good teaching practice), as opposed to hypocritically talking about theoretical weaknesses of the system. 11.129 helps you realize this potential path, from asking you to shape your expectations for the classroom to preparing your curricula for the coming year. It feels like actually getting things done, and I rather like it. I feel like I actually am partaking in life thanks to this class. Best of all, thinking about the future feels a lot safer now than it did just four months ago.
“You will never have to worry that your job doesn’t matter or that you are insignificant” -Dan Meyer on teaching.
On the topic of the future, friend recently pointed out to me how abrupt transitions are in standard American (urbanized?) life in the modern age. People are expected to go from living at home to school life to work to retirement, usually with no more than a year in between for some kind of transition. Each of these stages is extremely different in its goals and “ways to succeed”, yet we’re just expected to “get it” in a rather sink-or-swim way. And while many people seem fine, this is likely only a surface-level adaptation to any given stage; the suddenness of transitions and woeful unpreparedness for them probably causes a lot of inner turmoil for many. Why is it like this?
I read a claim that this mindset began with the onset of industrialization and, subsequently, standardization. Prior to that, people were more likely to ease from one role into another (consider, perhaps, family life on a rural farm; or even the apprenticeship model of school). As work hours became standard in factories, so did the notion of a retirement age; eventually, there was a standard education that came before that as well. It didn’t matter whether 60-year-old A was still fit and 60-year-old B had been suffering from a crippling illness for years; in this framework, both of them should retire at the same age. How odd.
I then picked up a book talking about retirement advice that mentioned Laslett’s model of ages in life:
The First Age is characterized by dependence, immaturity, and socialization. This is generally childhood and education. The Second Age is characterized by independence, maturity, and responsibility. This is typically “going to work” and “being an adult” – something like a 9 to 5 job and slaving away for income, and perhaps raising a family as well. The Third Age is characterized by flexibility, freedom, and fulfillment. The author of this retirement book argued there wasn’t much room for this kind of living in today’s standard framework, and people should consider an early “retirement” different from the one they imagine to fulfill this stage. This might look like pursuing a dream job or taking up a bucket-list pastime once you are already financially secure and have raised your children (and can instead pamper grandchildren or something). And lastly, the Fourth Age is the expected one of dependence, decrepitude and death. The author argued that retirement is too often this for too many people, who have worked too long or don’t feel like they have the agency to do anything beyond sitting around and wasting away. What struck me most about this book was how it felt like a lot of people I knew were trying to shrink away this Second Age entirely, and just start pursuing their dreams in the “Third” instead. The notion of just doing a job for the money isn’t one we particularly like thinking about; it felt so weird to consider the idea that a career didn’t have to be my passion around half a year ago. But reading this book I wondered, is it even feasible/realistic to just skip this second stage, even coming from such a [financially] privileged background?
I think a good number of people I know would say yes, it is certainly possible. Confining yourself to this Second Age of “responsibility” is narrow-minded and risk-averse. And I do think this openmindedness is a good thing.
Still, the book (obviously aimed at the general populace) made me appreciate how much of the Third Age principles I already manage to incorporate into my daily life – i.e. how much better off I am than many others. The author spoke of well-being coming from happiness (psych/social aspects)[1], health, and prosperity (material goods) and how these were the ultimate goals to strive for in retirement. I already am finding these, to some degree.
[1] Sidenote: I found his simple model on happiness interesting. Claim: you get happiness from 3 things: meaningful activities, engaging activities, & pleasant activities. It’s a hierarchy, where pleasant < engaging < meaningful. And maybe the same structure works for relationship, too: pleasant ones < engaging ones < meaningful ones. (Perhaps less of a pyramid and more of a nested Venn diagram?)
So am I trying to, in others’ eyes, effectively “retire” before ever having to slave away? A little bit, I suppose. Alternatively phrased, is it possible to just do what I want and still prosper? Well…I guess…
I don’t know. I think there are problems with Laslett’s model; clearly some of his Second/Third Age ideas need a little flexibility and blending. I think there are also problems with personally taking the path I’ve seen others go down, where they just go do things they are interested in, no matter how crazy – and it absolutely works! But… I think I’d be happier just teaching for at least a little while. It feels a little scary to say that, a little bit too much like I’m just “giving in” to a system or giving up some semblance of independence/individuality/identity that comes with nonconformity. Still. I think I’m reasonably happy with the idea and current trajectory. While it isn’t fulfilling any lofty goal, I feel like my feet are finally both on the ground and moving forward. And I think – hope – that that’s a good thing.