Is it time for the government to act?

[The Terrible Sweal]

...And one last, quick story. I am just completing an MBA, and in one of my marketing classes the prof's first question to the students was, "What is the marketing concept?". In spite of most of the class having already taken three plus years of marketing, I was the only one able to answer the question.

Other than ignorance, consider other possible reasons. Perhaps your fellow students couldn't bothered to look smart by parroting earlier learning just for the sake of faux Socratic method. Or perhaps the definition of "the marketting concept" (a philosophy which takes the customer, and the satisfaction of his or her needs, the focal point of all business activities) has been properly judged by your fellows as a relatively unimportant catchphrase which is not needed to be committed to memory.

In other words, perhaps your fellow students' enhanced crtitical thinking skills lead them to the behaviour, rather than ignorance.

A hundred years ago people where individualistic, they broke the land with muscle and determination.

It is probably fallacious to quate physica labour with enhanced individualism, if a properly broad historical perspective is taken.

Perhaps they didn't know how to send a probe to Titan - who cares anyway - but they had a lot to be proud of.

This comment suggests you harbor an antimodern attitude. I dn't understand why you dismiss the significance of space exploration.

Today kids are too busy gaming on line, and we have become a society of shoppers, whose biggest worry is what colour of car to buy this year.

That's an ironic comment coming from a marketting whiz!

[kimmy]

What a lot of generalizations being thrown around.

First off, I'll mention that I seriously doubt that most young adults today know much more about sending probes to Titan than young adults in 1930.

Second, I'll claim that I think well-educated young adults of today probably know far more than well-educated young adults of 1930. I have no studies or surveys to back this up, just the fact that people are exposed to far, far more information of far more types. There are more *kinds* of knowledge than there were 75 years ago. Science of today has learned so many things that were not understood 75 years ago. Like a snowball rolling down a hill builds on itself, the collective ball of knowledge has grown enormously since then. We've inherited so much knowledge from the work of prior generations. And what may have been cutting-edge knowledge at the times Watson & Crick, or Einstein, or Heisenberg, or countless others were making these profound leaps in our collective knowledge base, this has trickled down to become common knowledge. Any good highschool student in 2005 can tell you the basics of the atom or genetics; not in 1930.

Thirdly, much ado is being made of the not-so-good highschool students of 2005, or the not-so-educated young adults. I would propose that some people are simply not suited, either through aptitude or temperment, to academics. I would suggest that the people who in 1930 dropped out of school by grade 8 to work on the farm or join the army or fix automobiles, are now being forced to stay in school longer. I think that the kid who quit school at 14 to help with the farm in 1930, has to stay in school until he's 18 in 2005, because there's no farm for him to work on and he probably has little chance of becoming a tradesman without a highschool diploma, or because he's not allowed on a job-site until he's an adult, or at least because of social and parental pressure to graduate from highschool.

Society needs laborers in 2005, just as in 1930 or 1830. I think that thanks to urbanization of our country, the unacademic type of young person is a lot more visible today than they used to be. I would suggest that the farm-working kid of 1930 and the "vocational-ed" kid of 2005 are probably the same guy, under different social circumstances. The farm-kid of 1930 could start doing his thing earlier; the vocational-ed kid of 2005 has to cool his heels until he's 18 before he can become a roofer or drive a forklift or become an apprentice in a skilled trade or whatever it is he's heading for. And there is nothing wrong with him being suited to that kind of work, no more than there was anything wrong with a kid deciding to leave school to help on the farm. It's valuable, if unglamourous, work that society needs done. And if the people who are doing that work seem crude or foul-mouthed or unintelligent to you, I'd suggest that they probably were in 1930 as well, but you didn't see them because they were driving a tractor in the country instead of riding to work on the bus.

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

I would propose that some people are simply not suited, either through aptitude or temperment, to academics. I would suggest that the people who in 1930 dropped out of school by grade 8 to work on the farm or join the army or fix automobiles, are now being forced to stay in school longer.

This caused a hypothesis to occur to me ...

A human developmental phase occurs, let me speculate, in around the early-mid teen years wherein the mind seeks to establish a relationship between oneself and the broader society. Possibly, modern society (and sit-and-learn schooling in particular) fail to provide for this requirement.

[Lemming]

Perhaps your fellow students couldn't bothered to look smart by parroting earlier learning...

It is hard for me to believe that graduating marketing students, who can't relate a basic marketing concept, are instead consciously making the decision not to answer based on the need to reject the Socratic method. Can we simply not agree that they're ignorant or didn't even bother to read the chapter that was assigned to them? Why then expect a class of mechanics to know what the mundane, unimportant lesson of what an engine is? Then why should medical students bother parroting lessons on biology, anatomy and life sciences? And how can one engage in lateral thought, or innovation when one doesn't even know the basics? You're right, silly me, I've been hoodwinked by the evil Socratic method.

Or perhaps the definition of "the marketting concept.... has been properly judged by your fellows as a relatively unimportant catchphrase which is not needed to be committed to memory.

If these individuals can't commit a simple concept to memory - one that is fundamentally important to their trade- then they shouldn't be calling themselves marketers. I guess I'm to take your opinion over current, expert academic thought backed by study after study. Perhaps Disney would agree with you, while they loose billions in Europe as a result of the same ignorance and arrogance. I've tried hard to accept your notion that students of a particular subject shouldn't be responsible for knowing the most basic information on that subject, but it remains difficult.

This comment suggests you harbor an antimodern attitude. I dn't understand why you dismiss the significance of space exploration.

Exploration is not a "modern" concept, even the prehistoric hominids walked around looking for stuff. Yes, I question the utilitarian value of space exploration. I'm still waiting for the incredible, life enriching contribution all the money and effort that was spent going to the moon brought to society.

That's an ironic comment coming from a marketting whiz!

Well I guessed I missed the lesson that said marketing is just about selling cars. While I enjoy engaging in rational debate I loose interest when the name-calling starts. Reminds me of kids in the playground, not adults who are trying to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas.

[Argus]

It would have been nice if when you were building this country you didn't do it with borrowed money, then retire and leave us with all the bills to pay.

WE didn't do it with borrowed money; that is a recent development.

Recent? Starting in about 1970. Did you vote Liberal or NDP in the seventies, eighties and nineties? Then you helped run up this huge debt.

[I Miss Trudeau]

A human developmental phase occurs, let me speculate, in around the early-mid teen years wherein the mind seeks to establish a relationship between oneself and the broader society.  Possibly, modern society (and sit-and-learn schooling in particular) fail to provide for this requirement.

From what I recall of my intro psych course, I believe people undergo a developmental change at around 11-12 called fully operational or some such thing which pertains to the ability for abstract thought and full self-consciousness. Likely they do seek to establish the self at around this point as the self-other distinction is largely an abstract one.

Anyway, just what I recall from 5 years ago. Possibly wrong and definatly off topic.

[I Miss Trudeau]

If these individuals can't commit a simple concept to memory - one that is fundamentally important to their trade- then they shouldn't be calling themselves marketers.

Most fourth year students in most disciplines would be hard pressed to recite a definition that they learned in an introductory class. Some probably forget, some are probably worried about phrasing it incorrectly and looking foolish, some will reject a simplistic concept for a complex subject, and most no longer think in terms of the very broad spectrum of the discipline, having spent the last 4 years interested in one or two smaller sub-areas.

[Lemming]

I like the Socratic rejection theory myself.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It is hard for me to believe that graduating marketing students, who can't relate a basic marketing concept, are instead consciously making the decision not to answer based on the need to reject the Socratic method.

Not a need to reject it -- just insufficient incentive to cater to it.

Can we simply not agree that they're ignorant or didn't even bother to read the chapter that was assigned to them?

Obviously, my point is that we should not.

Then why should medical students bother parroting lessons on biology, anatomy and life sciences?

Indeed, why should parroting be such a seemingly important part of the 'education' process?

And how can one engage in lateral thought, or innovation when one doesn't even know the basics?

But your 'basics' here is an arbitrarily established, blindingly obvious, and unhelpful catchphrase.

If these individuals can't commit a simple concept to memory - one that is fundamentally important to their trade- then they shouldn't be calling themselves marketers.

Not remembering that a fundamentally important concept also has a pointless catchphrase attached to it doesn't seem like that big a deal to me.

I've tried hard to accept your notion that students of a particular subject shouldn't be responsible for knowing the most basic information on that subject, but it remains difficult. 

I doubt you've tried that hard. My reason for this doubt is that your have a mistaken grasp of my point. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be responsible for knowing important information. I'm saying:

1) they may not feel inclined to recite such data pointlessly; and

2) the particular data in your example isn't as important as you suggest.

Yes, I question the utilitarian value of space exploration. I'm still waiting for the incredible, life enriching contribution all the money and effort that was spent going to the moon brought to society.

Well here's some information sources:

Sources:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1  1992STIA...9587475B

1.000 00/1992 A                                                                         

Boskin, Michael J.

The economic impact of the space program

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

2  1992wadc.iafcV....P

0.577 08/1992 A                                                                         

Peterson, Douglas D.; Walters, Larry D.

A timely rationale for space exploration

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

3  1986STIA...8649569S

0.546 04/1986 A                                                                         

Seamans, R. C., Jr.

Mobilization of energy and space technology (The Durand Lecture for Public Service, AIAA)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

4  1993STIA...9593699K

0.526 00/1993 A                                                                         

Kasten, Terry D.; Donofrio, Mark, 2lt

Value of NASP to this country: The return on investment from a national perspective

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

5  1991snpw.proc..551C

0.519 00/1991 A                                                                         

Coomes, Edmund P.; Dagle, Jeffery E.; Bamberger, Judith A.; Noffsinger, Kent E.

An integrated mission approach to the Space Exploration Initiative 

While I enjoy engaging in rational debate I loose interest when the name-calling starts.

Well, let me know when that starts to happen.