The world does not need high school teachers who can do research.
This comment accompanied a quote from Einstein, and since this line wasn't
enclosed in quotes, I assume that it is Ray's.
I differ. The world does not need high school teachers who have no direct
understanding of research, having never done any.
The Einstein quote is very interesting and thought-provoking (as most of
his are). I love quotes like this which raise questions for discussion.
They can serve as good exercises for students to unravel what exactly the
person is saying, and implying. Let's strip away the platitudes and see
what (if anything) Albert is saying here.
Taken at face value, Albert seems to be giving useful advice to high
school teachers, and also speaking disparagingly of "specialization".
Albert was himself a specialist of high order, and something of a
generalist as well, so surely he isn't knocking specialization. Also, he
didn't spend much of his career teaching non-scientists in the classroom
(though he wrote many books for 'the layman'), so I can just hear folks on
this list saying to Albert "Before you pontificate, come to my school and
teach a term to folks who can't even deal with an = sign."
He begins by saying specialization isn't enough, and later advocates
something like a liberal arts education. He says that a physicist must
acquire more than "textbook knowledge".
I support those views whole-heartedly. Many teachers don't get that kind
of an education! They get specialization in *teaching*, ed-biz courses in
*how* to teach, a superficial introduction to the *subject* they teach,
and a small smattering of *distribution* requirements across the spectrum
of disciplines (but not enough to qualify for a 'liberal arts' degree.
Usually these days those are courses specially designed (watered-down) for
this purpose. For example, a course in sociology so elementary that it
isn't even allowed as an elective for sociology majors.
[I apologize for including some 'obvious' comments here, before people who
don't like what I'm saying clutter the list with examples of exceptions
intended to discredit what I'm saying. I am well aware that at *some*
schools these distribution credits include (or can include) the same
freshman intro courses taken by majors. I am also aware that at some
schools the curriculum for teacher certification is named a 'liberal arts'
degree, and that some students take a regular non-teaching degree and then
supplement it with the required courses for teacher certification. (A good
plan, in my view.) These exceptions don't erase the fact that one *can* be
certified to be a teacher in the United States without any more than a
superficial education in anything. (Someone reminded me off-list that
teacher preparation is far better in some other countries.)]
But Albert's comments on specialization go beyond that. He seems to be
"knocking it", calling a specialist a 'useful machine' and a 'well-trained
dog'. What does he mean here? Would he call *himself* a specialist when he
was doing physics, and himself only a useful machine or well-trained dog?
Or was he thinking of engineers? Or of the vast bulk of physics-trained
people who end up in engineering-type applied jobs, and never make the
sort of revolutionary contributions to physics that Albert did. My, oh my;
Is Albert being just a bit elitist here?
Reading on, we see that he explains that it is 'premature' specialization
he's complaining about, and takes a swipe at "overemphasis on the
competitive system". Wouldn't *that* comment go over big with school
administrators in a conservative republican community! I can hear the
reactions now: "Does this Einstein guy have communist sympathies?" But
such reaction may be blunted by Albert's mention of 'values', moral good',
and 'cultural life', all politically correct catch-words these days in the
U.S., even though there's little agreement on what they mean, when we get
down to details.
In my own view, it isn't an either-or thing: specialists vs. generalists.
I think that the world needs more specialists *who are also generalists*,
and more generalists who are *capable of* specializing in something.
Well, on the 'premature specialization', I have to agree that it has
dangers. But if that's a problem, it's a problem of society, and of the
entire system by which scientists are educated (trained?). I, or you,
can't affect that much. We can complain about it, even as we must live
with it.
But then, my colleagues remind me, "It works." Our educational system for
scientists does turn out the scientists society needs and is willing to
pay for. Call them trained dogs if you will, Albert, but that's exactly
what our society and our economic system *wants*, and that's the kind of
education it supports and is willing to pay a minimal amount for (but
never enough).
Would another system of education turn out better scientists? Better in
what way? Enough better that they'd have an edge in the job market, and
higher pay? Enough better that more of them would win Nobel Prizes and
make greater contributions to the advancement of science?
Would another system of education turn out better citizens? Better in what
way? Enough better that they'd make intelligend and informed decisions in
the voting booth? Enough better that they'd be more rational and critical
thinkers? Enough better that they'd be able to deal *quantitatively* with
issues such as exponential growth of population, finite resources,
economic issues, environmental risk statistics, etc.? Gee, I'm afraid we'd
have to have far more (and better) education in mathematics to bring that
about. Is that called 'premature specialization' in math, or is it
'appropriate technical preparation' for understanding complex issues?
I've included the Einstein quote below for reference.
-- Donald
......................................................................
Dr. Donald E. Simanek Office: 717-893-2079
Prof. of Physics Internet: dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu
Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA. 17745 CIS: 73147,2166
Home page: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek FAX: 717-893-2047
......................................................................
"It is not enough to teach a man a specialty. Through it he may become a
kind of useful machine but not a harmoniously developed personality. It
is essential that the student acquire an understanding of a lively
feeling for values. He must acquire a vivid sense of the beautiful and
of the morally good. Otherwise he *with his specialized knowledge* more
closely resembles a well-trained dog than a harmoniously developed
person...
These precious things are conveyed through personal contact with those
who teach, not *or at least not in the main* through textbooks...
Overemphasis on the competitive system and premature specialization on
the ground of immediate usefulness kill the spirit on which all cultural
life depends, specialized knowledge included."