November 23, 2010
First off, I really enjoyed this debate seeing that education is among one of my favorite topics to discuss. However, attending this debate further made me realize how useless it is to debate, and that it doesn’t contribute to the general welfare of knowledge. What I saw was room full of people rooting for either Anya, or Siva. Personally, I thought both candidates were great and fairly concise in their judgment on education. The thing that shocked me in between the two is the fact that there own arguments possessed extreme amounts of similarity. For example, Anya’s idea of “Informal Education”, is essentially the same as Siva’s “Anarchistic Communities”. From what I got, Anya’s idea of “Informal Education” consisted of an education that is “Cut out for the real world”, or a liberal education. Siva’s “Anarchistic Communities” shared the same idea accept he utilized the notion that it was “Not controlled”. Essentially, they were just arguing over the fact that one was better than the other when they both were the same thing.
Something else interesting that Siva mentioned was a quote from Karl Marx that stuck in my head. “Everything is contingent, and everything is up to us”. I really like this quote because I think that it is very relative to us. Although Karl Marx is considered radical for his ideas, he has a point here; Education is contingent upon us! This could seem a little arbitrary but it’s true!
Something else that stood out to me was when a questioner referred to Paulo Friere and spoke about Market Fundamentalism and educational Fundamentalism. It seems a little clear now, but I would still like someone to clarify this and how it relates to education.
In the end, something I observed was that the moderator said “Lets have a Reflection”. I immediately thought about Jean Twenge because the moderator was trying to make the crowd feel good after that African American woman harshly sullied Siva. Lol =)
November 28th, 2010 at 11:10 am
That African American woman was me, Dr. Kyra Gaunt from Baruch. I didn’t introduce myself because I was so challenged by the view Siva presented as if we professors have been innovating in the classroom. We’ve definitely been innovating in our research. But my point was not to *sully* Siva. I.e., defile: place under suspicion or cast doubt upon; “sully someone’s reputation” as one definition states. That is one way to interpret what I was out to say.
I was not speaking to Siva per se but to my colleague who was selling a kind of conversation about instructors that may be valid but is not what most students feel is happening from their POV. How do I know this? Been teaching for over 16 years and students share what’s going on in their relationships with faculty and I dare say from observational evidence and anecdotes (not to mention the rush of students who bombarded me at the end of the night) that something is not working for the majority of people in our classrooms today.
I’ll be posting my blog post on this later at kyraocity.posterous.com
Thanks for your review of the event, Deon!
PS What exactly was radical and what do you mean by “radical” concerning Marx’s ideas? Can ideas themselves be radical or our the reception/perception of those ideas radical? Couldn’t it be said that freeing the slaves in the early 1800s was a radical idea? Context is everything, ain’t it!
Some food for thought:
“Taken out of context I must seem so strange.”
Ani Difranco
Avoid context and specifics; generalize and keep repeating the generalization.
Jack Schwartz (obviously tongue-in-cheek)
November 28th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Another quote:
Disinformation is most effective in a very narrow context.
Frank Snepp
November 30th, 2010 at 6:48 am
Thank you for your review of the event as well Dr. Kyra Gaunt. I guess “Harshly sullied” was the wrong word to use in context = ), however, I did agree with your critiques. The debate was obviously not catered towards younger people. Both candidates were quite arrogant if you ask me. What does your last quote mean? (Frank Snepp)