Borcsa, Attila. "The Autodidacticism Complex." Vertegram (2007): n. pag. Web. 26 Feb 2010. < http://www.vertegram.com/conscious-living/the-autodidacticism-complex/ >.
By definition, autodidacticism is: "is self-education or self-directed learning. An autodidact is a mostly self-taught person, as opposed to learning in a school setting or from a full-time tutor or mentor." In this article, Borcsa questions how far can the path of autodidacticism bring you, by pointing out the benefits & risks of self-learning. He evaluates education through two aspects: personal development and spiritual development. Borcsa mainly states that automaths are driven by self-motivation, but are in danger of saturation and isolation- both can contribute and take away from personal/spiritual development.
One of the first questions that this website triggered for me was: "what if you're not self-motivated enough?" Of course, this type of mentality only developed through going to school for the past 13 years of my life, where my hand was held throughout my entire education process. However, if we were to consider autodidacticism, the idea might be intimidating. We probably wouldn't believe that it is possible, because we're too dependent on the authority figures, who create straight, two-dimensional paths for all of us. Even though it may seem impossible to use, there has actually been some famous thinkers who were automaths, which show that autodidacticism is an alternative worth considering. But then, of course, you wouldn't receive a physical representation of your knowledge and abilities.
"Unschooling." Absolute Astronomy (2009): n. pag. Web. 1 Mar 2010. < http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Unschooling >.
Unschooling is another alternative to education; one that centers around "allowing children to learn through their natural life experiences, including child directed play, game play, household responsibilities, and social interaction, rather than through the confines of a conventional school." The whole idea of unschooling is that the traditional schools with teachers and professors do not work because of mainly three reasons:
- "Children are natural learners."
- "Children do not all learn the same way (or at the same pace)."
- "It is possible to store the mind with a million facts and still be entirely uneducated"
This alternative method seems somewhat primitive, just by the fact that you're learning through life experiences and interaction with the world, as opposed to going to some building and have stuff poured into your mind. I find it interesting that although this is similar to older methods, it had to brought up by John Halt 1970s. It shows that people have already seen the educational system now as default, which is odd because usually the originals are the defaults.
Smith, Mark K. "Youth Work." INFED (2001): n. pag. Web. 1 Mar 2010. < http://www.infed.org/youthwork/b-yw.htm >.
Amongst the three alternatives, youth work is the most similar to our educational system now. Rather than changing the learning process as a whole, youth work just changes the focal point. This method would still take place in a school with an authority figure, but rather than concentrating on letting the students know what they need to know for the next level, youth work tries to emphasize "focusing on young people," "volunteer participation and relationship," "committing to association," "being friendly and informal, and acting with integrity," and "being concerned with the education and more broadly, the welfare of young people."
I can see how this might create a better environment for schools and the whole learning process. It encourages students to engage with their community outside the school walls. However, I think that it's still similar to our system now, in that there will be people who wouldn't want to engage in those activities. Students would still be subordinate to the teachers, and do what they are told, rather than what they want. I'm not saying that it's absolutely horrible that we the young listen to the elders, because there I do believe that guidance and structure is needed. But it may be better if students had an input into the guidance and structure, like which path they want to be guided in.
Just as the article name state, this website lays out the alternatives to schooling. There are a few routes that still revolve around going to school, etc. but are not part of the traditional, main-stream way of getting your education (e.g. dropping out/getting a GED, starting college early). There are also schools that have different philosophies, and different teaching styles (e.g. Waldorf schools- emphasis on imagination, Montessori schools- emphasis on the children and their "self-directed activities," Democratic schools- where teachers and students are "equal" and students get to decide how their time is spent, Free "Skool"- "encourage self-reliance, critical consciousness, and personal development.") The author also mentions a few other, more well-known alternatives: homeschooling, charter schools. online schooling, unschooling, and private schools.
Although the author seems a bit like a brat, he/she does a good job in listing out the alternatives. Some of these methods are still within the "school/education as an institution" idea (i.e. it's still the "inferiors" listening to the "superiors," but just with a different share of power, and a different tone of voice. The good thing about the alternatives included in this website is that they take into account the fact that you're going to need some sort of physical indication of your mental abilities, if you want to succeed in society that is. However, that does mean that the options given are less out there. We are limited to the options that will still teach us the same stuff and jump through the same hoops, but just in a different method. Hmm, that in itself says a lot about how our education system and our society are set up.
Once again, as the article title states, this web page compares a high school diploma to a GED. It breaks down and describes each one through four categories: Eligibility, Requirements, Length of Study, Reception at the Office, and Reception at the College.
Despite GED, meaning "General Equivalency Diploma," Littlefield, along with most people views GEDs are inferior. Although people saw that a GED is nearly equivalent to a high school diploma, it is more likely that a high school graduate will get a job over a person with a GED. If GED tests supposedly test you on the knowledge you need to have for college and whatever job is at the high school education standard, then why is that GED-holders are looked down upon? Even if two people are academically equivalent, why is it worse that a person took an alternative path, and saved himself/herself time in getting a diploma- that he/she was able to meet the standards of society at an earlier point in his/her life? But then again, most of the time, GEDs are seen as back up, given that it only requires a 60% to pass.
