Educating our future leaders

[Edward Campbell]

I have, in the past, commented upon the National Higher Education Entrance Examination (te Gaokao), the long, tough and generally fair process by which Chinese youngsters are sorted for later life. The process is dreaded but many Chinese, at least the ones with whom I have discussed it, support the aims and processes. There is, also consideration of following Singapore's lead and making entrance to secondary school subject to competitive examination. In Singapore it is called the Primary School Leaving Examination (2012 results just released today) which are also notorious for the stress and rigour.

That rationale for both the Gaokao and the PSLE is that:

1. People are a nation's most vital "natural resources" and the one of the few things that state can offer to help people make themselves "better" is education; but

2. Education is a finite resource and it must not be "wasted" on those who cannot use it to better themselves; and

3. Children, even as young as about age 12, are not too young to learn that you must work and even suffer to achieve your goals and you must compete with others.

Despite regular calls to reform (make easier) or abolish both systems, I have seen no signs that either will change - except, perhaps, to be even more rigorous. But can you imagine "failing" 2.4% of 6th graders in Canada?

Something to think about when you ponder why and how we are different from the Chinese.

There is an article in the Globe and Mail about how "high achieving" Canadian youngsters, young men and women who are, academically, in the top 5%, in every subject, and have impressive "résumés" showing leadership, community service and athletic achievement, prepare themselves for their futures - and where those futures might lie.

The article makes the point that "if Canadian universities cannot deliver the personal, quality programs top students look for, high-achieving students consider setting their sights on universities outside the country, looking to the Ivy Leagues or the U.K." The problem is that "losing ambitious teens ... to institutions abroad can diminish the country’s universities and economy." High achieving students, especially in graduate schools are and economic commodity, having them can be (almost always is) economically beneficial, lacking them contributes to stagnation.

Most Canadian provinces are, already, committed to some form or another of standardized testing. Maybe we should extend it further to include something akin to Singapore's PSLE and China's Gaokao.

Higher education is, already, a partially standardized system: the top law, medical and STEM graduate schools publicly evaluate university undergraduate degrees by their admissions. We know that doing well in your BSc at e.g. McGill or UofT* will give you a good chance of being admitted to a first rate medical school or MIT, for example, whereas even a very good pass from, say, Brock (which finished last in MacLean's rankings of "comprehensive" universities in Canada) is not going to be treated with much respect. The system is there, it's just unofficial - unlike China where the government "grades" universities into four classes (actually five - Beijing (or Peking) University and Tsinghau are in a class by themselves). Even the "market" enters into the university "grading" business: if a certain university's engineering graduates all do poorly on the provincial PEng exams that school will, very quickly, have its programmes overhauled because no one will want to study there. In effect professions and graduate schools already "drive" undergraduate degree standards. Maybe universities, not provincial educrats, should set formal standards for university entrance: standards which one either meets or fails to meet at a formal examination, à la China's Gaokao. It will do nothing to reduce the "stress" on students, but it is a useful tool for "sorting" young people - rather better than the current North American "sorting" systems which wrap themselves around several axles while trying to be "fair" to rich and poor, males and females, ethnic minorities, and so on, but end up looking more like the Hogwarts sorting hat than "merit" based systems.

If we had real standards, set, independently by universities - whose own standards are set, rather efficiently, by the "market" - then it might be possible for governments, including the federal government, to solve some of the "fairness" issues by e.g. awarding scholarships worth, say, 105% of the cost of tuition, books, fees and living expenses, year after university academic year, for those pursuing full time degrees.

The effects of making it easier for our own "best and brightest" to make the "best" use of our universities are (almost) all beneficial: we keep many of our good people in Canada (our best will want to study in the wider world, as they should); we make our universities stronger and qualitatively better - meaning that the best students from other countries will, as they should, want to study here; better universities strengthen the communities in which they exist - socially and economically. The only "downside" is that social engineers cannot decide who "deserves" to be in university based on e.g. race or family dysfunction.

_____
* Which, consistently, rank amongst the top 25 universities in the world in several different lists

 

[Edward Campbell]

I spotted another indication of what I consider to be less than optimal use of resources in another article, this one dealing with how law school graduate can go on to complete their "articles" and challenge the bar exam.

Currently not every law school graduate can find a firm willing to take him or her on for the "articling" process ~ the system is, in fact, competitive or "market" driven: there, simply, isn't "room" for every law school graduate so some, broadly and generally those with the worst marks, have to find a new profession.

Now, however, the Law Society of Upper Canada (the "trade union" for lawyers in Ontario) has decided to adopt a new system which will allow the "leftovers" to do their articles through a combination of a course and an unpaid "coop" appointment. It's not at all clear how the new system will work but it is already being described as "second rate." In fact it is another example of social engineering. The "market" suggests we graduate too many lawyers so it "weeds out" the least likely candidates and provides the necessary On Job Training (articling) for the ones who are more suitable for the positions available. One solution is to graduate fewer people - either accept fewer from their BA programmes or  make the "pass" standards higher; another is to carry on as now, allowing the "market" to decide how many law school graduates will go on to do their articles; the Law Society's 'solution' is to try to ensure that everyone who graduates can be admitted to the bar, suitable, needed nor not.

In my opinion, the education systems need more "market" and less social engineering.

 

[GAP]

You do realize don't you that you are committing heresay ........

Imagine, telling the universities that they should cut back on the cash cow of law students? disgusting !!  :  Why they would have to entertain a second tier of basket weaving or sumtin'.....

 

[foresterab]

The question of standards, consistency and I belive focus are important ones to consider.  In my chosen profession, forestry, standards at the education level are set by a National accredition board and while most forestry schools have accedition some only occasionly do.  This has been a positive as I look around the office and see the co-workers who have been educated from coast to coast and provides some common ground...it has also been a positive as it means that the individual schools must make the tough choices of either to maintain a program to standard or cancel the program in lieu of some other subject.

This also touches on the topic of interprovincial credentials as under the current set up each professional organization(s) for the forestry profession is that each province has indepent certification credentials.  I practice as a Registered Professional Forester in Alberta but must rechallange the provincial test in say BC or Ontario upon moving there ( a good thing due to legislation differences).  The difference is that because I was a professional in Alberta I am now allowed, due to recent changes in interprovincial recognition of credentials, allowed to practice in another province under a temporary authority until the first available time to apply for my provincial test.  This has GREATLY aided labor movement for when recruiting out of province.

Lastly focus.  Education works well but only with a focus and the focus of a school on who potential employers are, is a major issue.  Where I received my education the feedback, examples and guest speakers were drawn almost exclusivly from the forest industry unless it was subjects that only the provincial goverment dealt with (forest fires and legislation for example).  In part due to the connections with the industry, and in part due to relevence of materials used 100% employment rates were the norm out of school, at professional wages...a good return for years in the classroom.  In other educational schools that I deal with now the focus was on providing employees for the public service...and key subjects such as real life economics and adaptive management were not emphasized as much due to an emphasis on process, forms and legislation.  As a result the industry side of employers hired fewer of them and not all were able to find positions with the public service with over all lower wages. 

As part of this I have mentioned wages a couple of times as I find wages are a good benchmark based upon cost of living, sunken investment in education, and demand.  Although I currently work for the provincial government I easily could go to a sawmill, or power utility company, or oil and gas company or municipal goverment and apply the same skills.  In terms of wages this means that for equivalent hours of work the forest industry is pay -30% to +30% of my wages, utility companies +25%, and oil and gas +10% to +300% pay.  The reason for the variation is a reflection of location in the province, complexity of assigned work, time spent on the road/in camp, and stability of industry.  So does a test of competency help?  No...but the proof is in the paycheck at least here in Alberta in a tight labor market.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This also touches on the topic of interprovincial credentials as under the current set up each professional organization(s) for the forestry profession is that each province has indepent certification credentials.  I practice as a Registered Professional Forester in Alberta but must rechallange the provincial test in say BC or Ontario upon moving there ( a good thing due to legislation differences).  The difference is that because I was a professional in Alberta I am now allowed, due to recent changes in interprovincial recognition of credentials, allowed to practice in another province under a temporary authority until the first available time to apply for my provincial test.  This has GREATLY aided labor movement for when recruiting out of province.

What you are searching for is a type of 'Red Seal' program. Many trades have provincial standards, which if you don't move around, are fine.

Trades such as machinist, etc also allow for a higher testing standard (Red Seal) which makes the journeyman's ticket acceptable in every province without challenging the provincial standards.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Even in professions, law, medicine and engineering, for example, one's credentials and licenses to practice are a provincial matter but transfers between provinces are generally (there are exceptions) simple.

----------

My arguments are not with standards or licensing, I agree both are needed, but, rather, with how we "recruit and educate" our best people.

I believe it is a civic duty to have an elementary education - a duty on the state to provide it, free of all charges, to all residents (legal or not) and a duty on the individual to attend and work at school. I think that higher education is a key to greater prosperity for individuals and society and that it, the higher education system, needs to be managed so that it provides "the greatest good for the greatest number." But that does not mean that everyone has a right to a higher education, much less a free one. What it ("greatest good," etc) does mean is that those with demonstrated ability and commitment should not face any obstacles to achieving as much of the best quality education they can absorb. Thus I favour competitive entry standards for universities which implies a qualitative "pecking order" for those universities. Students who meet the highest standards should, regardless of their own personal/family circumstances, receive a truly "free" education (we can tax some of it back from rich kids' families). I don't think you have a right to an education just because you are poor and/or "oppressed," but I don't think you should be denied the opportunity, either. I think the state (society) has an interest in ensuring that the smartest, hardest working kids get to exploit their talents and aptitudes to the maximum degree possible and that's why I favour high scholarships for high achievers.

 

[ModlrMike]

Heresy! Don't you know it's all about equality of outcomes?

 

[OldSolduer]

My mum is 91 years old and a Scottish immigrant.

There were three streams in the Scots education system:

1. The proffesionals - doctors, nurses etc
2. Trades people - plumbers etc
3. Labourers - we call it "the leg up class"

 

[Remius]

The problem is that the whole system is geared towards pointing students to university or else they are somehow failures.  Not enough emphasis is put on trades or traditional employment.  A university degree is the be all end all of education here in Canada.  Universities are cashing in making tons of money off students that will either never finish their degrees or will end up with a degree that really serves no purpose for them.  We need more schools that focus on trades and the need to direct those with an affinity for that.

Teachers at the high school level tend to be university educated and have a bias for that.  Thus not in the best position to direct some students elsewhere.

Universities tend to get there reputations from research work, rarely for the quality of graduates they produce.

A massive change of western university culture needs to happen before any change happens here.

 

[a_majoor]

The issue of education has been discussed before (see http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/103474/post-1092188.html#msg1092188), but flowing from the arguments of "The Education Bubble" I wonder how "brick and mortar" schools will remain viable outside of special requirements like the STEM disciplines?

Edit to add:

If STEM disciplines benefit from Brick and Mortar due to the need to have labs and special equipment; leadership acadamies also need Brick and Mortar in order to sociaize and practice the leadership skills. By this reasoning, Canada may need more rather than fewer military acadamies.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The issue of education has been discussed before (see http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/103474/post-1092188.html#msg1092188), but flowing from the arguments of "The Education Bubble" I wonder how "brick and mortar" schools will remain viable outside of special requirements like the STEM disciplines?

Edit to add:

If STEM disciplines benefit from Brick and Mortar due to the need to have labs and special equipment; leadership acadamies also need Brick and Mortar in order to sociaize and practice the leadership skills. By this reasoning, Canada may need more rather than fewer military acadamies.

It's not clear to me that military colleges train "leaders," in any large scale and meaningful sense of that word. Churchill attended Sandhurst, but Roosevelt, Stalin (not a very nice fellow but he qualifies as a leader), Mao (less likable but far more charismatic than Stalin), Stimson, Truman, St Laurent, Macmillan and Zhou Enlai all managed to lead, on the global stage, without benefit of a military academy.

But we do have e.g. David Petraeus to represent the military colleges.   

 

[a_majoor]

Top drawer leaders will emerge from lots of unlikely sources (Stalin was a seminarian, I believe), but military academies or some functional equivalent might be a good grounding place for "middle management", the sort of hands on leadership that actually gets things done.

OTOH, I would like to think that learning literacy, numeracy and actual reasoning skills (such as at a STEM school) would give potential leaders a big leg up, but our current society does not seem to bear that idea out at all.....

 

[Brad Sallows]

The greatest problem we face educating the "leadership" classes is getting them to situate themselves in the correct ethical frame.