No, focus on pre-college education. As funny as it sounds, we don't need another top-flight university (which would cost billions alone) as much as we need better education in our local schools.
A few things that would help right away, uniforms and tiers. Three or four tiers would do. Slow, average, bright. I understand the mixing of students of different abilities, but I think it does more harm than good.
With all due respect that's an awful idea. Who gets to decide what tier a student is in? A test? How does a student who's in the "slow" tier get into the "bright" tier if they feel they've been miscategorized? You might be surprised, but that's no different than it is now, actually, in the school district that I went to and my brother is now in. If he wants to get into the AP classes in high school, he has to be in the advanced classes in middle school that put him a year ahead over the already slow curriculum. If you don't jump into the right stream of classes early on, you're screwed later if you decide "hey, I think I can work harder and learn more." You'll be a year behind everyone else.
What we need is classes that move quickly, classes that move slowly, and the ability to move /freely/ in between without stigma. That, and higher standards for /everyone/.
What does more harm than good is the fucking standardization of education, to the point where we assume that all children learn the same and if one has a different route to learning he's dull or disabled or disadvantaged. I mean, yes, he's disadvantaged, but only because the system we're in is so concerned with monitoring kids and determining who's bright and who's not bright, with such an ass-backwards system that it very frequently puts the wrong people in the wrong places.
When I was seventeen years old, I took the best class of my life. It was a science fiction/fantasy literature class elective, half a year long. I'd had the teacher the year before for AP English, and I assumed that perhaps the class might be as good if I didn't have to deal with the out-and-out retards that came with the subject of science fiction. We had the violent kids who fantasized about being evil dictators, the obsessives who didn't know when to shut their mouths... All the "special" kids who I'd stopped seeing in the eighth grade when it was determined I was better than them and shouldn't have to spend my time dealing with them. (Like dealing with the typical honors student is any less frustrating.)
Instead, our teacher barged ahead from the first day, without stopping for anybody or anything. The stuff he was teaching was alien to all of us: Propp's hierarchy for fairy tales was first on the list. He'd give us a book and a set of short stories a week and expect us to finish it all. While we read perhaps eight books all year in my IB English class, we got to at least ten in the sci-fi course, all in half a year, and we weren't dealing with bullshit sci-fi, we were dealing with the stuff that's complex and heavy enough to qualify as Serious Literature in my book.
How he achieved it: He had no lesson plans, he gave no tests, he did nothing but talk, using the things we were reading as a frame of reference. He'd do research so that he knew more than any of us (he crammed for Asimov, who I know inside and out, and came up with things I hadn't heard of before), and everybody just talked. There was no monitoring, no belittling, no talking down, just an hour-long conversation every day, with four big projects that determined our grade - but the projects were freeform; we could decide how to handle them. I wrote prose and poetry; three kids made a documentary; a bunch of the kids I'd detested went into Garry's Mod and recorded a pantomime; other kids made large cardboard replicas of alien figures and devised their own SF worlds.
Again, these were not honors kids. They were kids I'd thought were too stupid to read. But they handled the courseload as well as anybody, and left with a pretty hardcore understanding of how sci-fi works.
I have never had much success in school. I'm the kid who got placed in all honors courses because teachers realized I was a faster learner than their other students, but who spent his time in school refusing to get much schoolwork done. Before I discovered art school, which cared more for my portfolio than for my GPA, I was at a good public school, which in the minds of friends going to good private schools was a shithole. I endured a year of snide comments and mockery from people I'd gotten along with who were more-than-delighted to remind me that society had determined my "place" was in a public school with no famous alumni. Now that I've transferred to an excellent art school, all the comments are something along the lines of "Can I have a tall latte with milk?", which was funny about twenty years ago.
I find it unbearably offensive that society makes attempts to "rank" students. Yes, people are different, and learn differently, but those are strengths unless decided otherwise. I know a lot of people whose lives were ruined by well-meaning administrators who assumed children were shitty brats who needed disciplining and straightening out. What would help right away was a system that made an attempt to welcome diversity, not just in appearance (seriously, screw uniforms, they're fixing the wrong problem) but in character and style.
Fortunately, while all the research I've seen has suggested that it is critical to have different "tracks" for different students, it has also suggested that there is no need for the teachers/administrators to decide what track each student goes in. The results are actually better if you let the students and parents decide.
My high school was one funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and we tried to limit tracking as much as possible. For the first two years, there is absolutely no tracking. The idea is that the faster learners will help their slower peers who benefit from more interaction with their friends. Anecdotally, it seemed to work rather well but required students to initially be motivated to learn. My school never really had a problem with that because students applied to the school and could opt out of the application process without their parents knowing.
Anecdotally, I was always annoyed when I was dumped into a class with the slow kids and had to help them catch up while I was bored out of my mind. The 'no child left behind' mentality has slowed a lot of kids down instead of letting them learn enough to keep them interested in the material.
I'm a big believer of the theory that if you let kids decide what they want, they actually find a good path for themselves. I've been doing a lot of research on the Summerhill School in Britain, and it surprises me how radical that approach is, yet what logical sense it makes.
There are similar schools in the States (Carolina Friends school in Chapel Hill comes to mind), but most of them are very, ridiculously expensive (as much as a private college in the U.S.).
Can you link please to students/parents deciding tracks? I'm very dubious on this actually working, as if it wasn't for direct teacher/administrator intervention in my early education, I wouldn't have been pushed nearly as hard.
I think your experience is unusual in that you would have chosen easier classes left to your own devices. Usually, the debates about "tracking" center on the weaker students getting pushed out of the harder classes. What I remember seeing is that the countries with strongest schools (Finland and I think Singapore) just set a given pace for each class, and let students and parents decide what is best for them.
> to the point where we assume that all children learn the same and if one has a different route to learning he's dull or disabled or disadvantaged
That's why you would have different tiers. To help each student as much as you can at his or her own level. "Lower" tiers focus more on practical and artistic matters, while "Upper" tiers focus more on theoretical and intellectual matters. Note that countries that have such a system generally refer to it as columns, not tiers, because that name does not do it any justice.
It doesn't really solve the major educational problems (e.g. parents), but it does help to take the diversity of children into account.
Whoa, whoa. You're lumping practical and artistic? Methinks you don't have a clue what art is, because it's way way up in the theoretical.
My point is that students don't have levels. When I was in middle school, I was somewhat brilliant at math. (Not honking my own horn, but it's true: I was a beast.) I could handle pretty much anything that required formulas and logic and calculation. Once I got to high school, I had a slew of shitty math teachers, and an incredible English/humanities department, and so I shifted focus and found where I was happiest anyway. While I can handle left-brained stuff, I really shine when I'm dealing with hazier, foggier stuff and giving it meaning.
One is not better than the other. I have friends who are way over on one side who are just as bright as I am. My cofounder, for instance, is a massive Linux geek who is completely at home messing with code and fixing it up. The stuff that I do primarily online, design, he treats as a hobby. I treat learning to code as a hobby, meanwhile, while that's what he's studying. I'd never presume to call my job more important than his is, and vice versa. People are different. It's okay to like completely different things. It doesn't make you lower or higher in any way.
For most things in highschool determination is far more important than talent. Still there are levels of skill in highschool.
For example my little sister (18) is an artist who just got into Cal Art's Animation program not though grades rather she built an awsome portfolio. This summer rather than getting a minium wage job she held an art show and made more than minium wage doing what she loved. Yet, she was also the validictorion of her highschool, and took 7 AP test's getting a 5 on each of them.
Suggesting she has as much drive and talent as a normal highschool student is just stupid.
I'm suggesting that ranking high school students by any metric, drive and talent included, is stupid. In my senior year in high school I published a novel, so I'm aware of how drive and talent varies. At the same time, even driven people like myself and your sister suffer when a school system focuses on regimenting and ranking their students. We'd thrive on freedom as much as any other kid.
Intriguing! I wonder how a student from Gates U. would be accepted in the job market? Would there be a bias like there is today towards technical schools like ITT Tech and others? Or would the clout of Gates be enough to overcome that? I think it would be a great way to preserve the Bill Gates legacy though which might appeal him.
Now that you mention it, it does sound like an glorified trade (tech) school. I think the idea of having people with phd's teach at university is more for the critical thinking one gets out of class and not so much for their knowledge. When you get to the phd level, you are very specialized anyways and probably forgot most of intro to circuits (though you have to teach it anyways). University gives students the knowledge to think on their own, not sure you'd get that from Gates U.
I'd like to see Gates U. really be "Informal U." Experts in various areas organize little seminars of variable lengths and talk about whatever they want to talk about. Students find people who know what they want to learn, and ask them to teach it.
Each professor publicizes the list of reading you need to really understand before you can work with them - and informally organize a discussion group for the students they know are working through it. So you're forced to plan in advance, you spend time reading the fundamentals of a field, discuss it with people, and perhaps write something to show you know what you're doing, before the prof. lets you in on his project.
You plan your sequence of projects in order to get a) recommendations from interesting people and b) an interesting sequence of reading and work that fits together well. All the project work is either a) commissioned by industry or b) destined for direct publication. Ideally, most students do a bit of both.
This is College by UROP - you work with a few professors every year on projects, and you need their recommendation to progress into the following year. In your final year, you do a serious piece of independent work, perhaps with others. The referees you've had form a committee who judge your work. Quite simply, it needs to be published in a quality journal, or sold to industry, in order for you to graduate (i.e. you actually have to do something useful for somebody)
(edit: I just noticed this is basically just graduate school. Sooo, yeah ... Gates U. should be grad school for undergrads.)
High-quality college credentials are the key to opportunity in the modern economy.
Really?
I don't suppose it can be argued that they are. But it's far from clear that they should be, or even will be.
The field of post-secondary education is ripe with opportunities for new methods and technology. It's sad that someone tasked with studying this state of affairs can do no better than the stultified credentialism and admissions-essay mindset that afflicts the present system.
Not only does the author have no understanding of educational theory, I don't think they have any actual understanding of Bill Gates either. As if he would stop trying to cure malaria to start some some U.S. college.
I just read the article and I don't recall seeing him saying anything specifically about where it would go. He alludes to Seattle, and it is apparent that his words do lend to a US based institution, whats to say that Gates shouldn't do this somewhere else. Why not build it somewhere where its 10X cheaper to build and run, then do the research he's already funding "in house" as competition to the other researchers.
While I'd like to see a new, well-funded private university show up (preferably in Portland) the specific ideas here seem to be a combination of "vague" and "bad". Frinstance:
"Nor would you sequester faculty members into departments organized around academic disciplines... Gates's programs would cross traditional disciplines, organized around goals for what students need to learn."
You could, for instance, combine the teaching of physics with calculus, or linear algebra with computer programming, all integrated into one badass class with coordinated assignments.
There are some fine ideas here, but the writer doesn't really seem to understand money.
> There would be no tenure, obviously. I assume you never thought it was a good idea at Microsoft —why have it here?
I have problems with the tenure system myself, despite having tenure at a university. However, we must realize that it's not just some silly idea someone dreamed up one day. Tenure has real economic value to those who get it. The standard deal for professors at many universities is somewhat low pay, made up for by serious job security. Thus, tenure is, in part, a way of saving a university money.
So if you throw out tenure, and you want to get something other than bottom-of-the-barrel teaching, then you need to pay people more.
But the writer says:
> Who would work at Gates University? Anyone who could do a great job. Maybe professors will have Ph.D.'s, maybe they won't. If a really smart person drops out of college, founds a phenomenally successful business, and decides to turn toward education as a way of giving back, he or she would be welcome to apply for a job.
So, not only have you put yourself in a position of having to pay people more, you also want to get away from people who just like to teach, and instead hire people who have proven themselves to be very good at making money. Well, go right ahead, but understand that these people are going to require enormous salaries. Where is that money going to come from?
> For-profit universities, meanwhile, are surging into the online market. Some provide valuable services, while others are ripping off students and taxpayers. But on some level they all want to provide as good an education as necessary for as much tuition as possible. Gates University would provide as good an education as possible for as much tuition as necessary, ....
This seems to be a university with a focus on the education of undergraduates. However, that is not the primary (maybe not even secondary) purpose of most universities. Most top universities in the US are research institutions and their professors are hired for their expertise in their field, not their teaching skills. Are there problems with this approach? Undoubtedly. However, I don't think just throwing Gates's money at the problem will solve anything. If you want to hire top professors you also have to have benefits they wouldn't get at other schools. Salary may do it, but I have a feeling that most professors are in it for the research opportunities anyway.
This idea seems contrary to Gates's goals. He's said that he wants the money he's giving to charity to be spent in his lifetime. Endowing a school would necessarily prevent this goal.
Just to name a couple: The Foundation endowed $20 million to Duke University (University Scholars program). He also endowed $10 million to the University of Washington in his mother's memory (Mary Gates Scholars program).
