Essay: Isn't Education Merely Potential?

Every Wednesday, I have an essay on any topic that catches my fancy!

Here in the Philippines, the latest batch of students just graduated (my own sister included) so I thought that it would be appropriate to tackle education attainment. A diploma is typically a method of culling the capable from the incapable. Unfortunately, it is also all too easy to objectify people, reducing them to mere accomplishments (awards, degrees, grades, etc.) rather than accepting them as individuals. Now I'm not downplaying those who've managed to graduate, those who've pursued graduate studies, or those who are planning to take further studies in the academe, but let us remember the reason why we pursue education. Education in my opinion is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a means to attain something. An aspiring lawyer for example does not take law studies simply for the sake of doing so (although people are more than welcome to expand their knowledge base). He or she pursues law studies theoretically in order to become a lawyer.

If you can see the logic in that statement, then allow me to progress into my next line of thought: education is merely potential. Now potential is well and good but there is a difference between potential and actualization. The latter is tangible while the former is not. Take for example my undergraduate degree. Me and my classmates graduated with a degree in Creative Writing (and our program consisted of classes like fiction, poetry, nonfiction, and drama). Once we've left the university, there is absolutely no guarantee that we will write fiction, poetry, nonfiction, or drama. In fact, some of us have indeed pursued a career other than those that our degrees would dictate. Just because I have a degree in Creative Writing does not mean I will actually be a writer. Education merely provides us some of the tools and it's left to us as individuals to sort them out and actually utilize them.

Oh, and here's another important fact: people who've graduated with degrees in their particular field aren't necessarily experts in their particular craft. Again, it's easier to use myself as an example. I graduated in 2004. Unfortunately, the fact was that I wasn't a skilled writer back then (nor am I one now). (Now I'm not saying that pursuing my degree was a useless endeavor. Some of my fellow graduates have become talented writers in their own right but I'd like to think more of it is attributed to their own individual skills, talent, and initiative rather than solely on their education.) And I've seen this occur in other fields. Business majors don't know how to run businesses. Literature majors can't critique and merely parrot their teachers and their text books. Computer Science majors stopped honing their programming skills and updating their knowledge.

Again, I'm not downplaying the importance of education. I've witnessed some local writers pursue education outside of the country, in established universities, and prestigious workshops. However, I don't judge them to be great writers by that fact alone. What makes them talented writers in my eyes is their output: they write terrific stories. Because the human condition cannot be isolated, certainly their education has played a role in their ability to produce such compelling work. But obviously, not everyone with a degree in some famous university will end up being the greatest person in their field: they need to actualize their potential. And unfortunately, sometimes, the actualization falls short of the perceived potential.

On the other hand, formal education is not the only way to reap one's potential. There have been numerous instances for example when people with no business backgrounds become millionaires and market moguls. When it comes to writing, there are numerous editors and writers who have neither a degree in Literature nor Creative Writing yet become prominent and influential in their field. My teacher even told us this story about a 30-something housewife who had no previous history of publication suddenly deciding to become a writer and her stories easily qualified for workshops. If you merely look at the official papers of these people, they have no apparent potential yet they more than make up for it with their output. It has become a pet peeve of mine when people become skeptical of other people's abilities because of their lack of education. For example, a local publisher was questioned what right did he have of publishing and editing his own periodical considering his lack of a literary background. For me, that's the wrong question to ask. Does it matter if he was lacking a literary background if he published quality stories? Now if the critic had based his judgment on the actual output (and they're free to ask the question "what right do you have of publishing this kind of material considering it's all crap?"), that would have been fine. But these days, I find that people are basing their questions solely on education attainment.

What I want to say is that at the end of the day, your own tenacity, your own initiative, and your own skills factor more when it comes to your career or profession more than your education ever will be. I'm not saying that don't get a diploma as every bit helps but never, ever, feel entitled to something just because of your degree or education attainment. The world is changing, the world is dynamic, and the best way to prove yourself is through your actions rather than through simple bragging rights.

More Thoughts on Education

Expounding more on my previous blog entry, here's my way of approaching the subject using lateral thinking. In the past, arms and armor have typically been custom-made. Purchasing a full plate off the counter of a shop was highly unlikely because the suit had to fit you. While swords and blades were more common, no one can deny that a sword specifically crafted to be wielded by a person or your strength and size was superior compared to a sword randomly picked up from the dead bodies in battle. It is only in a post-industrial revolution era that people have grown accustomed to mass-produced goods such as canned food, automobiles, and computer chips. So what has this to do with education?

Well, the problem with the existing school system is that education isn’t tailored to suit the needs of any specific individual. Instead, it is a process not unlike army conscription and recruits are indoctrinated into what the institution deems them fit to learn. Specific needs are thrown out of the window in favor of techniques that address the majority of the population. Which is all well and good for the majority but what about the minority? Or better yet, what if the minority IS the majority and we have been expending resources all this time to teach the few (or as the case may be, the wealthy, the influential, the privileged)?

There are typically two ways to teach a student. One is for the student to adapt to the teacher and the other is for the teacher to adopt to the student. In the typical classroom set-up, it is unlikely that the teacher will opt for the latter. Instead, we have a process of passing and failing, which is just another way of saying that the student was unable (or in the case of the delinquent student, did not want) to adapt to the teacher’s particular teaching style (which in turn is typically dictated by the school and applies the same pass-or-fail method in its hiring policies).

That’s not to say this is always the case. Every school will have the “eccentric” teacher with unconventional teaching styles (I once had a teacher who taught in song and, given the choice, would have danced as well). But for the most part, they are the exception rather than the norm. That is why certain individual teachers will develop reputations in schools and universities—most people like to think that these teachers are famous (or infamous as the case may be) because they are bright and talented but I like to think that what sets them apart is not necessarily their intelligence but their particular teaching style and paradigm. It is also for the same reason that "conventional" students are baffled and flabbergasted when faced with such teachers (I had a teacher who claims to have given a True/False exam where all the statements were true... the students ended up sabotaging themselves as they second-guessed themselves and labeled random statements as false).

There are also other institutions out there that attempt to teach the same things a typical school tries to indoctrinate into its students albeit via different means. A new form of education that has arisen in the late 20th century is home school education—which really isn’t any different from private tutoring except that the tutors are typically the parents or better yet, the student themselves. Private tutors are another example although the results may vary: some tutors do adapt to their students while others are as rigid as any teacher trained by schools. But for the most part, private tutors are more suited to adapt to the needs of their student since they are only catering to one patron instead of schools wherein rations of 40:1 (if not higher) is possible (if not the norm).

And to be fair, it is also not the teacher’s fault. Your typical school teacher might be flexible but the rules that are imposed on them aren't. Typically, standard policy is to treat everyone equally. Now this might sound fair but in reality, this is an inefficient method of teaching. Let’s face it: we all learn in different ways and we all have different strengths and weaknesses. A student might be having difficulty with reading because he or she comprehends the spoken word more. That doesn’t mean he or she is less smarter than a person who is a voracious reader, merely that his or her comprehension skills function in different ways. I’m not saying schools don’t answer this dilemma. To a certain extent, they do. Dyslexia for example requires a special kind of education. There are also various remedial classes (remedial math, remedial English, remedial Filipino) for those failing in a certain subject. But for the most part, I do not think the individual needs are addressed and students are forced to cope with the existing method of instruction.

That I think is part of the problem with education in general although when it comes to the Philippines, that problem is heightened by our current social factors. For example, some students are better suited to learning in English while others are better suited to learning in Filipino. Whatever technique the teacher favors, the other type of student is losing out. The same goes for our textbooks which are less malleable (unless they are bilingual). Education has lots its individuality and become this engine of mass production instead of recognizing what Plato and other Greek philosophers realized when they set up the first academies: education was inquisitive, dynamic and fluid which is why no written text could replace a human being as a teacher.

When our education system is criticized, blame is attached to various sources but I do not think they truly address the problem. Teachers are blamed. The schools are blamed. Government policy is blamed. But ultimately I think, even if you change any or all of those factors, we will still have an education dilemma. Because the flaw in the system isn't in the method we choose but in our inflexibility, of dictating one particular style instead of applying a plurality of techniques.

I’m fortunate to have either a) managed to cope with the current education system or b) one of the few whom the current education system actually favors. But just because I benefited from it does not necessarily mean that the current system benefits the entire populace. Going back to Myths About Languages in the Philippines, I expect English teachers to speak and communicate in English with some proficiency and the same goes for Filipino. But as for the other subjects (exempting foreign languages), I can live with anything in between. In desperate times, Tag-lish has been used by either the student or the teacher to best express their ideas and for me that's fine, as long as the point is gotten across. But many schools lack that flexibility, and perhaps our biggest dilemma is that people are looking for the grand universal theory that will solve all of the country's ills even when the truth of the matter is, life is seldom that simple. Don't look for a single answer. Look for a lot of them, and just because you find one does not mean you should stop. That path leads to stagnancy and contentment (contentment is well and good but it also hampers progress and innovation).

Education and Gaming

The Shifted Librarian has a couple of links (and a funny video) on the impact of games (sorry, video games, not tabletop games) and education:

At Learning2007 later this month, they’re going to do a Rapid Learning Game Experiment. While the exercise itself is fascinating, it’s the last sentence that intrigues me most (emphasis is mine).

“We are going to push Gaming for Learning Development to the max in an upcoming experiment. Here are the ingredients:

• Take several undergraduate students from Champlain College’s Electronic Gaming & Interactive Development Program in Vermont and bring them to Orlando for Learning 2007.
• Give them an assignment to create a Learning Focused Game, defined by a group of companies at Learning 2007.
• Over the next 58 hours, in full view of 2,000 participants - with feedback every few hours - they will build an web based immersive learning game.
• This learning activity will then be reviewed, edited and released into Open Source for the entire global community to use.“

The Web as Tools for Education

From Tame the Web: Libraries and Technology

The School Library Journal has an article entitled A Little Help From My Friends: Clasroom 2.0 Educators Share Their Experiences and it has specific examples of how educators are maximizing their "Web 2.0 Tool of Choice" as learning aids such as blogs, social networking, wikis, podcasts, and social bookmarking.

The Dichotomy of The Pursuit of Knowledge

One would think that education and knowledge should be the primary goals of civilization but looking back on our culture and literature, that's not always the case--or the lesson we teach our children.

In one extreme, we have our Lovecraftian horrors, the idea that there are some things "man was not made to know". Yet in Western literature, this idea did not begin with Lovecraft but draws on from something much older: The Bible. As a child, I always wondered why The Tree of Knowledge would be the source of sin. Wasn't knowledge a good thing? Scholars might argue that's not the moral of the story, that Adam and Eve were punished not for gaining knowledge but because they gave in to the temptation of the serpent. Yet I think the story in Genesis has insinuated into our minds that to be knowledgeable means to lose one's innocence (and in many ways, losing our innocence is one of the ways to learn more about the world). A faint echo of this is the idea of contentment. I often hear the phrase "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" yet this clearly goes against the idea of innovation. As archaic as this mentality might seem, it's prevalent in the present. On one hand, there'll be the people who'll claim that science ruined us all and that corrupt research gave birth to the likes of the Atom bomb, even as they benefit from the comforts of nuclear technology. On the other hand, there'll be the type that are more selective, perhaps agreeing to better health care but disagreeing when it comes to the topics of stem cell research, cloning, or mapping the human genome.

On the other extreme is the idea that we should embrace knowledge unconditionally. I forgot which SF author I was reading at the time (I think it was Isaac Asimov) but he said that the reason we fear something is because it remains in the realm of the unknown. Once we dispel the mystery, we begin to understand and with that understanding comes acceptance instead of "irrational" fear. I think in many ways, this is a hard idea to accept. Perhaps the influence of the other mentality is stronger than we think and an unconditional acceptance of knowledge is beyond our comprehension. In the same way that we want to know where money came from when it's offered to us (be it our boss, our relative, or a complete stranger), we also want to find out where certain pieces of information comes from (Was it from the Russians? The Iraqis? The Chinese?) and perhaps more importantly, where it'll lead to (which is impossible because that's the point of research and application). Some people fear that military intervention might lead to the next Atom bomb but many fail to realize that most of our present comforts can be traced to military research and development, everything from the microwave to the Internet. Religion is another subject matter that is hard-pressed when it comes to the accumulation of knowledge for many fear that with better understanding of the universe comes less faith and devotion. (I find it interesting that even the most scientific and modern of countries still have a "national" religion. Perhaps the fear of religious fanatics is unfounded, that even as we come to accept the theories of Darwinism, there'll always be room for the Creation myth.) Even philosophy takes a hit and while Douglas Adams jokes around that the discovery of whether there truly is a God or not marks the end of philosophy and dialogue, in a world where everything is certain and factual, is there still room for debate? Not that the latter should matter. There are those after all who believe that the accumulation of knowledge will never end, that for every question answered, several new questions pop up. If that's truly the case, one can't help but wonder whether there's a point in research. If all we have left and more questions and more mysteries, what's the point of discovery? Will we never reach the end? But I think that is too much of an oversimplification. Awareness that the sun is the center of the Solar System might not have changed life for the common man directly but it certainly has paved the way for the exploration of space and artificial constructs like satellites and the transmission of radio waves.

Literature I think will tackle this idea in one of two ways. Horror movies and novels tend to stick to the realm of the unknown, that awareness gives birth to buried horrors. Science Fiction, more often than not, uses curiosity as a tool for salvation. (In many ways, the science fiction movie is related more to horror than actual science fiction. Robots gone berserker and aliens on a warpath are trademarks of the genre. Movies like Contact are the exception rather than the norm. Even concept movies like Gattaca tend to be dystopian and bleak.) That's not to say science can't be used for evil ends. The reality is, knowledge is just like any other tool. In irresponsible or misguided hands, it can wreak much havoc. In the hands of a master artisan, it can be used for good. But most people in my experience don't take note or forget that fact. They label knowledge--and science--as a blanket moral (whether good or bad) instead of making a judgment based on the people involved in the research or the corporation funding them. Just look at people's approach at nuclear technology. Ever since Chernobyl, people have grown to fear nuclear power. That's not to say nuclear power is full-proof but there are certainly fail-safes which can be applied to make it a safer and more efficient power source. But rather than ask who's managing the power plant or where it's situated, people's blanket reactions are a loud cry of denouncement.

Perhaps one thing people overlook is that with knowledge comes the burden of responsibility. Irregardless of how smart you are (or how not smart you think you are), everyone in my opinion is charged with making the most of what they know, whether it's seeking further knowledge or making the right choices based on their current state of mind. Perhaps the most pathetic of excuses one can hear from somebody is not that they are ignorant but that they are unaware of their ignorance.

Education Manifestos

So lately I've been reading up on various Manifestos and while I don't necessarily agree with everything that's written, I think the more important thing for me is that it provokes me into deliberating.

The first one I'd like to share is Beyond Snobbery: Grammar Need Not Be Cruel to be Cool by June Casagrande:

We can take apart the gears of any whole sentence, reassemble them in different ways, replace certain parts with other parts and retain the same meaning or change it subtly or drastically.

We can learn these things one by one, over a whole lifetime, enjoying the feeling of being “smart” without having to be “smarter than.”

Focusing on others’ language shortcomings is a sucker’s game. Sure, it can make us feel big in the short term. But it’s just a matter of time till we get knocked on our butts. And that sucks the fun and excitement out of language faster than you can say “dangling participle.”

Up next is How to Get Better Teachers--and Treat Them Right by Chester E. Finn, Jr.:

Training and certification arenʼt the whole story, either. The personnel practices of
the teaching field are archaic and bureaucratic. Licensure is often followed by a hiring
sequence in which the likeliest openings for a novice are in the worst schools, there
to be hurled into a classroom and left pretty much alone with a bunch of demanding
kids and little opportunity for colleagueship, professional growth, or mentoring by
expert teachers.

On top of that, the expert teachers themselves get no tangible rewards; theyʼre paid
exactly the same as ordinary (and weak) instructors. Longevity and paper credentials bring more money, but effectiveness does not. Nor does it matter whether one is a high school chemistry teacher whose other job opportunities pay $100,000 or a middle school social studies teacher whose nonteaching options are far less lucrative. Their salaries remain identical. The same spurious equality holds for teachers in tough inner-city classroom situations and those in cushier environments.

The last one, although for the most part sounds more like a plug rather than a manifesto in itself (and applies to aUS context rather than the Philippines), is With Books Falling From the Sky: A Discourse on Literacy by Roxanne Coady:

Consider these effects of low literacy:

• 43% of adults with Level 1 reading skills are living in poverty, compared to 4% of those at Level 5 literacy levels
• The likelihood of being on welfare goes up as literacy levels go down. 3 out of 4 food stamp recipients read at the two lowest levels.
• Adults at Level 1 earned a median income of $240 per week compared to $681 per week for those at Level 5.
• Adults at Level 1 worked 19 weeks per year compared to 44 weeks for those at Level 5.
• Seven out of 10 prisoners performed at the lowest two literacy levels.

UVSC Prof Quits Books

From SpacecowbOy

The Daily Herald has a recent article on a professor who does away with text books (because text books are expensive and part of the rising cost of education).

Hammond was teaching a race relations class last year and had assigned a textbook that cost about $80. Unfortunately for the students, the publishing company released a new edition and none of the students could sell the book back.

"All these students had to eat that book," Hammond said.

That caused Hammond to re-think textbooks. Now, instead of assigning his students textbooks, Hammond assigns them reading material from journal articles and original research available on the Internet or in the library.

Since then, Hammond has gotten rid of all the books textbook companies had given him. He re-did all of his courses, basing his tests and quizzes on the new material, writing his own questions because he no longer has access to banks of questions that come with the book.

It took him all last year to re-write the material for his classes.

"It was worth it in the long run," Hammond said.

He even stopped using a textbook supplement he wrote.

Hammond said he would continue to tweak his courses to give the students the most bang for their buck and the best education he can present.

Hammond doesn't know if not using a textbook is better for the students academically.

"In a sense this is a field experiment. I'm learning as I go," he said.

Personally, I like the other advantage of such a method:

Still there are some possible benefits. Hammond said he can teach students better because it offers flexibility and teaches students research skills.

"I want them to understand where information comes from," Hammond said. "It's a skill they're going to need."

Unfortunately, while there's a lot of computers and (relatively) cheap Internet access in the country, it's still not as accessible as I'd want it to be for the public schools to implement such an idea (in my alma matter alone, there were long lines as students waited to use the computer for online research and printing).

Critical Reading and Schooling

Some people would argue that the book beauty of fiction is that it works on several levels. At the very least, there is the literal level where we accept what the narrator tells us at face value. And then there’s the various interpretations, taking into account the context of the author’s era, what the author intended, perhaps the metaphor of the story, etc. This is one of the skills we develop as critical readers. However, I don’t think critical reading should end with books—it can be applied to real life as well. And as much criticism as I have for the institution of traditional schooling, they have a lot to teach students if the students were to practice critical reading.

I’m not unique in this when I say that while I value the education my school taught me, I’ll value even more what they didn’t teach me, or what I learned from the experience rather than what I learned from the teacher’s syllabus. At the very least, some of us acknowledge it at an unconscious level. It’s when we say that school taught us how to cope with life, how to deal with other people, how it prepared us for a job, etc. I think when we people profess those things, that they’re talking about the indirect lessons they learned by staying in school. But let me backtrack a bit.

What people typically expect is that they’ll learn from the teacher (which for me is bullshit… if you don’t want to learn, no teacher can convince you to do so; a teacher can provide you with the means but at the end of the day, it’s up to the student to decide whether he or she wants to learn or not, even if the teacher is ineffective). It’s the lesson itself, the lesson plan, the readings, etc. This expectation, I think, is what we would call the literal level in fiction. The teacher/narrator is trying to impart to us a certain point of view or knowledge. And sometimes, people don’t dig deeper than that.

However, there are other lessons we can learn. It’s been my experience that in the classroom setup, there are two kinds of teachers: those who teach you facts, and those that teach you the learning process (and sometimes these are the same teachers who question the facts and the established status quo). Facts, in general, are of limited use (and no use at all when they get updated with something else). The learning process, you’ll value for life. In college, my teacher was Ambeth Ocampo and rather than give us exams on dates and events, he questioned us on events that mattered. For example, we took a field trip to old Manila and visited the houses during the Spanish era of the country. One question that came up was whether he wanted to live in the past or the present. Most people would answer past or present and give good reasons. Ambeth told us the best answer wasn’t whether it was in the past or present, but rather what social status we would have—as rich people living in the past, we would still have amenities just as we would have in the present. There was also the time he told us examples of how history is in flux, such as Emilio’s Aguinaldo’s execution of national hero Andres Bonifacio was only brought up when he ran against Manual Quezon for the presidency (one of those fierce, mudslinging battles). Perhaps two decades from now, I’ll forget all those facts. What I will remember is how I was taught to question history and look for the agendas behind the stories—because there will be.

Another interesting lesson we can learn at school is how to deal with people. The good thing about classrooms being filled with lots of students is that it’s random sampling at its work. I’m sure every class had a studious student, a practical joker, a bully, the leech, and the wallflower. I was once tempted to transfer classrooms because of a certain bully and wisdom taught me better—it wouldn’t matter if I transferred classes or not, there’d still be bullies. The question was what I’d do about it. When I joined the masses of people employing for typical jobs, my experience with the workplace was similar. The same archetypes I discovered in school were the same archetypes I’d find with my officemates (obviously, this doesn’t happen if you happen to work alone or you get to choose your teammates). Again, the question isn’t in getting rid of them, but how you react to them.

There are other lessons one could learn from school if one paid attention. For example, for a time, I wanted to teach, so I observed my teachers. What techniques worked? What didn’t? Why did they work and why didn’t they? One might think that observation is limited but if you have a keen mind to back it up it works wonders. Some might argue that it’s because I was interested in teaching so that’s why I found value in it. But that’s not quite right. The school is very much its own ecosystem, its own business, its own government. Focus on what you want to learn. Interested in running a business? Pay close attention to the cafeteria, or perhaps the whole school. Ask questions like how much does it cost to maintain the school every month? How much is their electric bill, the water bill, the salary of the teachers? How much is it earning? When does the staff get paid (if any)? How soon is it expanding? Is it expanding proportionally or is it at a rate of diminishing returns? Also try participating in a club or org. Strangely enough, my experience as news editor of the school paper is no different from my experience working as an editorial assistant: the same problems and dilemmas pop up. Don’t limit your schooling to what people think you “should” learn but rather what you can learn.

When you move on to college, don’t simply focus on the specialized training you’ll obtain. For example, in Computer Science, you’re missing out on the point of the lesson if you merely expect to come out learning a specific language such as C or Java. The good teachers don’t simply teach you how to code but rather how to think logically and effectively, so that when you transfer from one programming language to another, you’ll still apply the same process although the syntax and terminology will be differnet. Schools also tend to teach us the value of deadlines, teamwork (especially when you hate your team), leadership, and how to deal with authority (whether you conform to it or rebel against it)—those are skills that transcend professions and degrees. And at the end of the day, just because you took up one course doesn’t mean the job you’ll obtain will be related to that course. Humans are flexible and there are a lot of lessons we’ve learned, whether directly or indirectly. Learning doesn’t end in school and if we’re interested in a different profession from the one we were formally trained in, that doesn’t mean we can’t pursue that career. I’ve seen extremely talented writers who have had no formal writing classes, successful programmers who didn’t pursue Computer Science but rather taught themselves the skills, and businessmen whose college degrees were in the Humanities. People aren’t computers—we learn from a variety of sources and not just what others “input” into us.

Personally, there’s nothing more I’d want than to live a simple life, wherein I accept everyone’s word at face value. But that’s not reality and there are various undercurrents, some that we manage to catch a glimpse of, and a lot that we’re simply unaware of (and that’s why when it comes to government and other huge institutions, we ask for transparency). Critical reading teaches us to notice those things—if we look for them. Similarly, there’s a lot we can benefit from traditional schools if only we pay close attention and start thinking “out of the box”. Don’t limit yourself to the education people perceive you should get—grab it from wherever you can get it.

What's Wrong With Book Drives

Bouncing off Filipino Librarian's post on book donation programs and Tin's reply to A Nation of Non-Readers, the book drive isn't exactly the most effective method for spreading literacy--in fact, it's more of a placebo to the educated rather than an actual solution for the illiterate.

My main complaint about book drives is that it lacks focus. On the surface, typical book drives look like a good program: you spread the love of reading by donating books--books that you don't read or need anymore. We're looking it from the perspective of the giver in this case. However, in order for a program (any program, be it a book drive or something else) to be effective, we need to look not at who's initiating it but rather from the point of view of the recipients and ask the question whether they're truly benefiting from it. And the fact of the matter is, general book drives are a hodgepodge of donations, the equivalent of a garage sale. Will some books be picked up and read? Probably. But not all of them will have a use for everyone.

That's not to say book drives are bad. The intentions are good but the method is sadly inefficient. Book drives need to have focus and better yet, a concrete plan and goal.

That's not to say every book donation drive is like that. The blogs mentioned above point out AHON foundation which has a concrete book list that they need instead of randomly soliciting books. And back in grade school at Xavier, we'd have annual book fairs at the library and there was a program where they'd solicit books for other children. The good part about it--while not as specific as AHON foundation--is that you were encouraged to donate books that had the Newberry seal on the book. (Yes, the system is flawed, but it was a good start.) In Ateneo de Manila University, there's a similar book drive for the students--old text books are donated so that the next batch of students can purchase them cheaply.

If we actually want to foster change, it's not enough to simply have good intentions. We need good business plans and randomly donating a book isn't necessarily the right direction that we should be taking. In fact, it's such a basic thing yet we've perpetuated random book drives for too long.

What every organization needs is to define their agenda and work a plan from there. For AHON, it aims to educate kids so obviously, they'll need books that educate. Read or Die wants to have a stronger spec fic presence at the Fandom Cafe so they're soliciting fantasy and science-fiction books to put up in the place. Here, the goals are aligned with the solutions.

Of course the solutions don't end there. I think follow-through is important and in any organization you're supporting, it's important to find out where the funds go and how they're spent. When we give to charities, do we ask how effective the charities really are? Personally, my brain stops working the moment I take out my wallet and drop my donation. That's why I call book drives a placebo for the educated--it makes us feel good irregardless if we've actually benefited society or not. Honestly, to those who have the wealth, donating money is easy (not that we don't need financial donations). Donating time, on the other hand, is something more precious to people with money. (Of course those with time but not money similarly devote much-needed service into their chosen causes.) But I do think it is an important question to ask when we're supporting any organization--how are our donations being utilized and spent?

Perhaps the greatest sin of book drives isn't that it's ineffective, but that some people's sense of compassion ends there. "I already donated a book, my duty's over," is as mentality that one might espouse. With contentment dies the motivation to innovate and to change.

The Textbook Dilemma

A serious problem plaguing the Philippine education system is the lack of books and textbooks. Most students simply can't afford to purchase them or are unwilling to devote funds to legally obtain them. I mention the latter part because one of the more serious violators of copyright infringement is happening in the Philippines: the photocopying of books. In the Philippines where the quality of life isn't as "convenient" or "luxurious" as the West, the more prevalent mode of book piracy aren't eBooks and illegally downloaded documents but the photocopying of books and textbooks.

There are, of course, a lot of factors contributing to this phenomena. One is the fact that a lot of Filipinos aren't rich--most of them are suffering from poverty. Photocopying is a simple and cheap means to replicate a book. In a way, the local textbook industry has somehow adjusted to this. I mean in my seventeen years of education, I've seen science books in black and white printed on newsprint. This isn't necessarily bad if done correctly but the problem is that they're simply reproductions of more expensive, colored science books. The charts become unreadable, references to color that's simply cannot be distinguished, etc.

The other fact is that it wasn't always illegal to photocopy a book for "educational" purposes. Back during the Marcos regime, it was legal to do so. And I'm not condemning the government back then for instituting such a policy--in the short term, it seemed like the best solution to solve the poverty and illiteracy dilemma of the nation. Were foreign publishers happy? Probably not. But the political climate has changed and the present government has to appease a lot of external (and I really mean international) forces.

I'm not directly condemning photocopying--it is a cheap and effective method of distributing media. The problem is it's a short term solution--disregarding laws (and in this case, copyright laws) is disruptive in the long run. And if I have any complaints against the Philippines, it's that we always turn to short-term solutions instead of long term ones. So now we've made a long term decision to enforce copyright law but enforcing it is another problem. And the problem with humans (and not just Filipinos) is that it's harder to give up something we're used to or feel is a "right" even when that's not necessarily the case.

Perhaps what's shocking is that while the textbook photocopying is a solution for the impoverished, it's not only who take advantage of it. I'm not by any means impoverished. If I gave my family an honest assessment, we're in the upper middle-class or lower upper-class income bracket. I went to Ateneo de Manila University for my college degree and it's not exactly an impoverished university (and while you might argue we have scholars and working students, for the most part, a lot of the university's students are well-to-do). Yet textbook photocopying is still rampant here. In fact, it is in universities that these micro-photocopying industry thrives. I mean one can only photocopy so many hand-outs and notebooks--a good chunk of what's being photocopied are books, especially in the university library.

Of course looking back, purchasing books legally instead of photocopying them might have easily cost as much as my tuition. I mean I took this one literature class over the summer and it cost me half of what I'm earning right now to acquire all the necessary books I need (the class was "Ten Books of the Century"). The other problem I faced, aside from the acquiring the funds to purchase all those books, was finding the books themselves. I think the local bookstore landscape has changed in the past few years for the better but four years ago, it wasn't so easy to find Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf, The Castle by Franz Kafka. And that was just one class. How much more for a student who has multiple classes?

Again, this might not be so much of a big issue in the West but it is a dilemma with no immediate viable solutions. We're a third-world country buying first-world books. What probably caught me off-guard was my friend asking for a Demonoid account, not to download porn (which I expect from him) but to acquire medical books (for one reason or another, whether it's out of his budget or out of circulation locally).

The one solution I see that will make books and textbooks accessible to the masses are eBooks, but that must be quantified. Right now the biggest barrier to eBooks is the fact that you need an expensive device to read them and the industry is doing little to remedy this. What does one need to read an eBook? A computer, a PDA, an eBook reader--all of which are expensive, even if the eBooks themselves might be sold cheap (or even free in the case of illegal downloads). It's simply not a viable alternative as it is.

What hurts the most is probably the fact that this shouldn't be the case. The industry can follow the loss-leader business model. Or simply create a functional but featureless eBook reader that will cost under $20.00. It doesn't even need to run Mac OS X, I'd be happy with Dos. But it seems that people are dazzled by things like the iPod and PDAs and the like. What irks me about Filipinos is that they'll somehow manage to scrounge up enough money to buy a mobile phone but not food for their family for the day and such.

Formal Education as a Self-Perpetuating Institution

I have one big problem with formal education (i.e. schools). It's not in the education itself (although that one has its own set of problems) but rather in how people tend to over-estimate its value.

It's quite simple really. In terms of the job market, what's the first thing that employers screen for in applicants? Unfortunately it's usually the diploma, the school where he graduated from, and/or his education attainment. It's a starting place, mind you, but there's a tendency to base majority of your decision based on those facts.

I like a meritocracy, even if that's not necessarily the fact of life in the real world. The problem with basing hiring policy on diploma alone is that it is limited. I mean there's probably great, talented programmers out there who don't have a degree in Computer Science (they're self-taught). And there are probably designers out there who don't necessarily have the educational background of their preferred field but had informal ways of nurturing their craft.

But the fact of the matter is, some people base their decisions in diploma alone. And it's a perpetuating cycle. Ateneans for example will have a preference for Ateneans. Sometimes the reasoning isn't necessarily because of their education but because of the kinship one feels for them -- he/she came from my alma matter.

The current structure of schools isn't designed to innovate but is rather similar to the current structure of government: it's there to last, to resist change, to maintain the status quo. And it does it quite well. What's shocking is that people aren't aware of it, or don't want to see it.

I'm not against formal education mind you--I'm a product of that system (and I excelled in it). I just want to point out its limits and how many fail to see this uncomfortable truth. One shouldn't underestimate informal education however.

The Quest for Wisdom

For me, the hallmark of mankind isn't so much our intelligence, or our ability to wield tools, or our civilization, but rather our ability to learn. Of course learning is not a skill that's exclusive to humans (even animals can learn), but without it all our past accomplishments (as well as our failures) become irrelevant. Perhaps on a subconscious level, we're all aware of this. That's why most societies respect their elders, not just out gratitude for all they've accomplished, but because of the wisdom they are reputed to possess. Of course the assumption there is that with age comes experience, and with experience wisdom. But that's not always necessarily true.

I'll first tackle experience. From a theoretical point of view, it seems that age equals experience. After all, you have longer years to live compared to a child, hence you should have more experience than one. However, is that really the case?. For one thing, life isn't unfair as much as it is unequal. We're born into different backgrounds, equipped with different talents and flaws, each leading us into an easier or more difficult life. The other factor is free will. While we can experience the richness of life, we don't necessarily choose to do so. It might be because we're afraid to leave our comfort zone, or we have other priorities, or simply something else is holding us back. Take for example a child born into war and poverty, and a man who's lived a posh and comfortable lifestyle. The latter will never experience the rigors and trials of the former, and he won't really be tempted to venture forth from where he is, unless he suddenly feels bored or empty. That's not to say that the former will always have more experiences than the latter, but by default, the poverty-stricken child was raised in adversity, while the comfortable man has to search for further experiences (and honestly, how many people are truly tempted to look for problems?). That's also not to say that the latter doesn't have anything to teach the former. Everyone has something to teach, it's just that the experiences each of them faces is different, and some are more sedentary than others.

The second assumption of course is that with experience comes wisdom. But anyone who's attended school knows that as much as our teachers try to teach us, we don't necessarily absorb everything they tell us. The same goes for experience. While there are always new lessons to be learned with each encounter, we don't necessarily learn them, or even realize them in the first place. Using the same example from the previous paragraph, the war-torn child might have more experiences, but he might not learn from what's being thrown at him. The comfortable man might end up being more wiser, especially if he maximizes his current environment. Just because you're given more doesn't necessarily mean you do more. In the end, it's what you do with what you're given. And quite frankly, not everyone takes the opportunity to learn. It might be due to pride, ignorance, or selfishness, but when we're presented with the chance for growth or truth, we shirk away from it, or even ignore it. In the end, it’s not a question of how much you’ve experienced, but rather how much you’ve learned from your experiences.

If we could channel age into experience, and experience into wisdom, that'd be great. But that's not always true. Perhaps the comforting fact about all of this is that we don't necessarily need age to have a lot of experiences, and just because we don't have a lot of experiences doesn't mean we can't be wise. It's about wanting to be taught, discerning what there is to be learned, accepting the lessons there is to be found, and making the most out of it. An old adage is that knowledge isn't wisdom. And that is very true. I think the last step is an important part as well. Because we can be the most knowledgeable person in the world yet if we don't do anything with it, we're about as effective as a fool. Knowledge lies in the theoretical, while wisdom is the actuality of it. If we don't act on what we know, then there's really no point in knowing if we're just going to act in the same way. It doesn't mean our accumulated lore should be translated into physical works, but it could be something as simple as appreciating your family, friends, and country. Even in the very act of appreciation, there is a change within the human spirit that other people can see.

There's also a misconception about where we can obtain knowledge. A lot of people prize formal education too much, perhaps to the point that it becomes unhealthy. Many fail to value the importance of informal education, of experiencing life in other ways. I'm a product of formal education myself, but if my life revolved solely on it, then I wouldn't be the person who I am now. School, after all, is a simple albeit difficult life. Your teachers tell you what needs to be done, and you know what needs to be accomplished. The only problem you face in school is how to go about finishing those tasks. However, that's only one facet of life. More often than not, the problems we face isn't getting to our destination, but discovering what our actual destination is. And formal education does little to remedy that. Moreover, while I value what my teachers taught me, I valued even more what my classmates, what my environment was teaching me. Society, especially societies of children and young adults, can be quite an awful place. And perhaps what's special about that kind of society is that it's natural, we don't hold back and there are little pretensions of civility: we act without restraint. And while there is much good that arises from that, there is also much wrongness. As a child, we're blunt, for example. We speak what we think. And sometimes, our selfishness rises to the surface, and no one else is as important as ourselves. There's a lesson to be learned from all of that, a lesson that is often tinged with nostalgia. Formal education might teach us how to accumulate knowledge, but it’s the environment surrounding it that teaches us how to be human, for good or for ill. We might not remember what’s been taught in the classroom, but we definitely remember our experiences, our emotions, our friends from that part of our life. Perhaps what most people yearn for when they think of their childhood isn’t so much the lessons itself, but the environment formal education gave us.

And if there’s any reason why we should understand and value our ability to learn, it’s because it shapes our beliefs. Everyone values virtues, although the hierarchy might vary between each individual. Some even have different definitions of virtues, and one can engage in an endless debate on matters of love, truth, and justice for example. It’s people’s ability to learn that shape these ideologies, these belief of ours. I think first and foremost, people want to find a truth, a universal law that governs their lives. As much as we know the world is complicated, we want to simplify things to the point of oversimplification. We cling to certain ideas as if they were the only truth. In some shows I watch, villains are usually portrayed as believing in the ideology of survival of the fittest or that the strong rules over the weak. One might think those are extreme examples, but they’re actually a reality. Hitler, for example, believed in the ideology of utilitarianism. One of the reasons he condemned the Jews was because he found them useless, at least from the perspective of his country. Yet this utilitarianism belief is still prevalent, albeit not a powerful political force as it used to be. Every time we exhibit prejudice, that’s being manifested to a certain extent: the way certain people look down on retarded babies, the way some people condemn homosexuals because they can’t procreate, or simply the believers of an opposing religion because they don’t fit into their cosmological concept. I mean just the other day, I found an American blogger who wanted to kill all Muslims because of some extremists who were perpetuating acts of terrorism. These are the result of oversimplifying things and looking for a general rule to govern our lives. It doesn’t even have to be a political ideology, it could be a religious one, or even propaganda such as good always wins (as if who was "good" could be identified, or that "evil" will never win a battle). Of course these beliefs of ours, whether they are truly applicable or not, result from our own experiences and our ability to learn. Most people usually base their decision on what they decide is true. Centuries ago, people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. When presented with a different theory, even when proof was showed, they were skill skeptical. I’m not interested in who’s right or who’s wrong, but rather their motivations for choosing which one to believe. In that era, it was easier to believe that the Earth was the center because everyone else encouraged it, including an influential force, the church. Sometimes, we refuse to embrace other ideas because we already have a pre-existing one. It’s like an empty slot that once we find something to fill it with, we refuse everything else. Another problem with oversimplification is that we tend to polarized ideas. As Bush would say, it’s either you’re with us or you’re against us. And perhaps the problem with that kind of mentality is that it leaves little room for further growth. We can’t learn new ideas if we’re not open to them. And perhaps what’s debilitating is that we attempt to destroy those other sources of learning.

Our mistake isn’t so much in believing various truths, but in believing there is only one and final truth. A lot of people take offense at other ideas because pride gets in their way. They think an attack on their ideology is an attack on themselves. What they forget is that we’re human, and we keep on learning everyday. So what if what we learned wasn’t true? We can always adapt, always change. If we trip, we can pick ourselves up again and try once more. That’s the beauty of learning: we have other opportunities and we learn from our past experiences. However, some people simply don’t see it that way. That’s why people look for scapegoats. Once they’ve pinned the blame on someone or something, they stop looking for alternatives. Once one possibility is discovered, they stop looking for others. Because honestly speaking, to do so is more difficult. We shirk away from further learning because sometimes, it’s really the harder path. And as much as humans prize learning, they want simplicity and easiness when it comes to life. Can I blame them? I sympathize with them because we all yearn for the same things but in the end, learning is a choice, and we have no one else to blame if we refuse to see the lessons being taught.

What I find peculiar is how people fight for ignorance. People usually rally under the banner of terms like innocence or childhood. It’s what happens when parents don’t want their children to see the news, or complain that the schools are exposing their children to the real world, or even in terms of certain forms of censorship. It’s not that these types of people don’t know the truth, it’s that they fear that the truth they think they know will cripple their children. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that the world around them is really the world in reality. Children, for example, might not experience violence in television, but they will eventually experience it, most likely from school (whether it come from themselves or from other children). That’s not to say the full brunt of reality should be forced upon the children, but rather we shouldn’t stifle the learning experience. And in the end, children are still people, and they possess free will. No matter how much we try to raise them right, they will still make mistakes. And sometimes, no matter how much we screw up, they will still turn out for the best. We’re not the only source they learn from. We can be thankful for that.

Plugging E2K Projects

Good day and greetings of peace!

We all know that the state of education in our country is a HUGE problem, but that doesn't mean we cannot do anything about it right? :) As the saying goes, every journey begins with a single step... As such, I would like to invite you to take that single step with us and help make a difference by being a volunteer for any of the following projects of E2K:

a.) E2K Public School Teachers' Benefit Card

- we all know that our public school teachers are one of the most overworked and underpaid people in our society. These teachers have to often teach more than 6 classes a day and class sizes are at an average of 60-70 students per class. Yet, despite these sacrifices, many of our public school teachers only get to take home a monthly salary of P 3,000 per month which is not enough to even provide for the day to day expenses of their families. As such, E2K will develop a benefit card that will provide discounts to teachers at different establishments such as fast food restaurants, groceries, drug stores and the like. This benefit card will be given to all public school teachers all over the Philippines. By doing this, we hope to help our public school teachers and at the same time motivate them to teach their students better. If you would like to volunteer for this project and help us help our public school teachers, please email Mark Ruiz at ruizmark@gmail.com

b.) E2K Build a Library Project

- current studies have shown that only 3 out of 10 public high school students are independent readers meaning they can read and understand what they are reading whereas the rest of them can read but have a hard time comprehending what they read. One of the main causes of this is the lack of quality books that public elementary school students can read. Many public elementary schools do not have a library or if they are lucky enough to have a library, their collection of books are either out-dated or they have fewer books than their entire student population. As such, E2K is planning to help build public elementary school libraries that will provide our students with good reading materials and eventually enhance their reading skills. If you would like to volunteer for this project and help us build a culture of reading among our public elementary school students, please email Rabbi Ang at rabbi_ang@yahoo.com

We hope that you can help us out by volunteering your time and efforts to any of these two E2K projects! :) You may also help us out by simply forwarding this email to all your friends and inviting them to help make a difference for the future of Philippine Education! :) I n case you would like to learn more about E2K, please visit our website at http://www.e2kphilippines.blogspot.com/ , email us at e2kphilippines@gmail.com or you may call Mich Javellana at (02) 723-2777 :)

Thank you for your time and we hope that you will heed our call to help make Education work in our country! May you have a pleasant day! :)


Sincerely,

Harvey S. Keh
Secretary-General
Ang Edukasyon Tungo sa Kaunlaran (E2K)