Latest news with #JohnDewey
Spectator
5 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
With many despairing academics packing it in, who will solve the problem of the universities?
Whatever happened to universities, beacons of the liberal enlightenment? Well, according to both these authors, they are in deep trouble. Cary Nelson is a distinguished literature academic who for six years was president of the American Association of University Professors, set up in 1915 by John Dewey to advance standards of excellence and academic freedom. His book Hate Speech and Academic Freedom: The Anti-Semitic Assault on Basic Principles, published last year, has now been supplemented by this powerful thesis published by the Jewish Quarterly. Even before the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel, he argues, campus anti-Semitism was rife across the West. Following the attacks, 56 per cent of Jewish students in the US said they felt they were in personal danger on campus; 13 per cent of students at large said that the Jews deserved any physical attacks they experienced; and 10 per cent called for their genocide. Expressing such views anywhere in a democratic country is reprehensible, but the fact that this is openly tolerated at universities is profoundly troubling. 'Gaza Solidarity Encampments' originated at New York's Columbia University in April last year, setting a pattern for 150 similar encampments at US colleges and universities. Anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic slogans blared out from first light, anti-Israel posters and flyers were displayed and the functioning of university life was generally disrupted. Within weeks, 36 similar encampments had been established in the UK, including at Bristol, Cambridge, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Oxford, Warwick and University College, London. Nelson rightly champions the qualities that have underpinned universities at their best: 'Truth, reason, argument, inquiry, collegiality and freedom of thought.'
USA Today
28-05-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
As a college professor, I see how AI is stripping away the humanity in education
Dustin Hornbeck Guest Columnist As the 2025 school year ends, one thing teachers, parents and the broader public know for sure is that artificial intelligence is here, and it is taking on more responsibilities that used to be left to the human brain. AI can now tutor students at their own pace, deliver custom content and even ace exams, including one I made for my own course. While a bit frightening, that part doesn't bother me. Of course, machines can process information faster than we can. What bothers me is that we seem ready to let the machines and political discontent define the purpose of education. Kids are disengaged at school; AI doesn't help A recent Brookings report found that only 1 in 3 students are actively engaged in school. That tracks with what I have seen myself as a former high school teacher and current professor. Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle. Many students are checked out, quietly drifting through the motions while teachers juggle multiple crises. They try to pull some students up to grade level and just hope the others don't slide backward. It's more triage than teaching. I tested one of my own final exams in ChatGPT. It scored a 90% the first time and 100% the next. Colleagues tell me their students are submitting AI-written essays. One professor I know gave up and went back to in-class handwritten essays for his final exam. It's 2025 and we're back to blue books. I recently surveyed and interviewed high school social studies teachers across the country for a study about democratic education. Every one of them said they're struggling to design assignments that AI can't complete. These aren't multiple-choice quizzes or five-paragraph summaries. They're book analyses, historical critiques and policy arguments ‒ real cognitive work that used to demand original thought. Now? A chatbot can mimic it well enough to get by. So what do we do? Double down on job training? That's what I fear. A lot of today's education policy seems geared toward producing workers for an economy that's already in flux. But AI is going to reshape the labor market whether we like it or not. Pretending we can out-credential our way through it is wishful thinking. School should teach kids how to live in the world, not just work in it John Dewey, the early 20th century pragmatist, had the answer over 100 years ago. He reminded us that school is never just a pipeline to employment. It is a place to learn how to live in a democracy. Not just memorize facts about it, but participate in it. Build it. Challenge it. Schools are not about the world; they are the world ‒ just with guidance by adults and peers, and more chances to fail safely … hopefully. That's not something AI can do. And frankly, it's not something our current test-driven, job-metric-obsessed education system is doing, either. Parents and community members also play a crucial role in shaping this type of education, which can lead to a healthier and more robust democracy for all. In Dewey's model, teachers aren't content deliverers. They are guides and facilitators of meaning. They are people who help students figure out how to live together, how to argue without tearing each other apart, how to make sense of the world and their place in it, how to find their purpose, and how to work with peers to solve problems. If we let AI define the boundaries of teaching, we'll hollow it out. Sure, students may learn more efficient ways to take in content. But they'll miss out on the messy, human work of collaboration, curiosity, disagreement and creation. And in a world increasingly shaped by machines, that could be the most important thing we can teach. The challenge isn't to beat AI at its own game. It's to make sure school stays human enough that students learn how to be human together. Dustin Hornbeck, PhD, is an assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies. His opinion does not represent that of the university for which he works. This column originally appeared in The Tennessean.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
As a college professor, I see how AI is stripping away the humanity in education
As the 2025 school year ends, one thing teachers, parents and the broader public knows for sure is that AI is here, and it is taking on more responsibilities that used to be left to the human brain. AI can now tutor students at their own pace, deliver custom content and even ace exams, including one I made for my own course. While a bit frightening, that part doesn't bother me. Of course machines can process information faster than we can. What bothers me is that we seem ready to let the machines and political discontent define the purpose of education. A recent Brookings report found that only one in three students is actively engaged in school. That tracks with what I have seen myself as a former high school teacher and current professor. Many students are checked out, quietly drifting through the motions while teachers juggle multiple crises. They try to pull some students up to grade level and just hope the others don't slide backward. It's more triage than teaching. I tested one of my own final exams in ChatGPT. It scored a 90% the first time and 100% the next. Colleagues tell me their students are submitting AI-written essays. One professor I know gave up and went back to in-class handwritten essays for his final exam. It's 2025 and we're back to blue books. I recently surveyed and interviewed high school social studies teachers across the country for a study about democratic education. Every one of them said they're struggling to design assignments AI can't complete. More: U.S. lawmakers, Nashville music industry members discuss AI: 'Making sure we get this right is really important' These aren't multiple-choice quizzes or five-paragraph summaries. They're book analyses, historical critiques and policy arguments—real cognitive work that used to demand original thought. Now? A chatbot can mimic it well enough to get by. So what do we do? Double down on job training? That's what I fear. A lot of today's education policy seems geared toward producing workers for an economy that's already in flux. But AI is going to reshape the labor market whether we like it or not. Pretending we can out-credential our way through it is wishful thinking. John Dewey, the early 20th century pragmatist, had the answer over 100 years ago. He reminded us that school is never just a pipeline to employment. It is a place to learn how to live in a democracy. Not just memorize facts about it, but participate in it. Build it. Challenge it. Schools are not about the world; they are the world — just with guidance by adults and peers, and more chances to fail safely … hopefully. In Dewey's model, teachers aren't content deliverers. They are guides and facilitators of meaning. They are people who help students figure out how to live together, how to argue without tearing each other apart, how to make sense of the world and their place in it, how to find their purpose and work with peers to solve problems. That's not something AI can do. And frankly, it's not something our current test-driven, job-metric obsessed education system is doing either. Parents and community members also play an important role in shaping this type of education, which would lead to a healthier and more robust democracy for call. More: From GPS gaffes to fabricated facts: AI still needs a human co-pilot If we let AI define the boundaries of teaching, we'll hollow it out. Sure, students may learn more efficient ways to take in content. But they'll miss out on the messy, human work of collaboration, curiosity, disagreement and creation. And in a world increasingly shaped by machines, that may be the most important thing we can teach. The challenge isn't to beat AI at its own game. It's to make sure school stays human enough that students learn how to be human—together. Dustin Hornbeck, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies. His opinion does not represent that of the University for which he works. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: AI is transforming education. We're struggling to keep up | Opinion
Forbes
29-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Rules Of Client Engagement, According To Pragmatism
BERLIN, GERMANY - AUGUST 07: Zwei Maenner in Anzuegen geben sich die Hand on August 07, 2014 in ... More Berlin, Germany. (Photo by Thomas Trutschel/Photothek via Getty Images) For most businesses, referring to clients as numbers or alphanumeric codes is standard. Small and large companies alike benefit from the standardization and efficiency of the practice, while customers can benefit from a privacy perspective. But it also strips the clients of their humanity. This tension is inevitable, especially for more client-facing roles and customer service occupations such as hospitality, sales, and healthcare, which need to balance personal connection with some detachment to perform best. In the Apple TV series Severance, the employees in the data refinement department at Luman Industries are completely removed from any knowledge of what the data they work with represents. While this is an extreme example, the degree to which we connect and disassociate at work is a general dilemma. The philosophical origin story of pragmatism can be a guide here. When Immanuel Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason in 1781, the doctrine he laid out became the basis for philosophical thought thereafter. Kant advocates for rationalism, which establishes a limit on the scope of what we can know. We will never be able to empirically grasp the world beyond our senses, but the key for Kant is that this transcendental world is still real. With reason alone, we can access the transcendental. According to Kant, reason is, 'the faculty of the unity of the rules of understanding…it is the origin of certain concepts and principles.' Reason allows us to pick up patterns and generalize the world, establishing physically unreachable ideals of religion, morality, and knowledge. It is a freeing thought, giving human beings the ultimate power to determine the world's principles without the need to empirically confirm them. Then in the early 20th century, a paradigm shift. With the many major post-industrial revolution technological and scientific advances, philosophers were looking for an alternative to Kant and his rationalist philosophy, where the theoretical rules. Maybe, just maybe, the totality of knowledge really can be exposed empirically. Thus came pragmatism, the hot new wave in American philosophy. William James, Charles Sanders Peirce, and John Dewey are generally seen as the movement's founding fathers. In broadest terms, pragmatism assesses ideas and actions based on their actual usefulness. For Pragmatics, knowledge is simply an instrument for adapting to and controlling the world. In a stark break from Kant, idealistic principles are of no concern to Pragmatics as there are no metaphysics involved. Likewise, pragmatic morality is not some higher ideal we are continuously striving towards. John Dewey, along with James H. Tufts, put forth this moral groundwork in their 1929 book Ethics. They define ethics not as some transcendental concept but as 'a science.' According to Dewey, an action is morally right if it successfully solves a problem without damaging side effects. Moral progress comes from adapting our habits based on previous consequences. How can this theory help with determining the degree of distance necessary between yourself and your clients? A Pragmatist would use her previous client exchanges as proof of what works as what doesn't. If getting to know a client to a very personal level negatively impacted her work, then the next exchange would be less personal. If too much distance drives the client away, dial up the connection. This might seem obvious, but it is not necessarily the norm. Following Kant and striving towards general guidelines is a popular method for dictating client interactions. Instead, try being pragmatic and use your past thoughts and actions as a tool for future success.
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Shutting Department of Education will not solve underlying crisis
March 26 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump has moved to close the Department of Education on the grounds that it is inefficient and unnecessary and states and parents can better guide their children's learning needs. While the United States spends far more money than any other country on education, its younger grade school students lag far behind their global peers in ability to read, write and perform math. But, while the evidence of insufficient retention of knowledge is powerful, will states and parents do a better job? This is the wrong question. The more urgent crisis is being ignored. About 44% to 50% of all kindergarten through grade 12 teachers resign or leave the profession within five years -- and about 30% after three. This is the most critical reason for educational shortfalls. Until this shortage is redressed, and soon, simply complaining that students do not learn is a false representation. Can states and parents fix this crisis without U.S. government help? Combined federal, state and local funding for public K-12 schools is about $900 billion per year, or $17,700 per student. Public and private universities cost an average of about $30,000 a year per student. Interestingly, while the United States has the highest overall spending on education, adjusted for gross domestic product share, it is similar to most developed states. Despite the country spending these amounts on education, critics argue that the United States still faces grave challenges in translating that investment into better educational outcomes, especially for STEM. Between the Civil War and the turn of the century, free public schooling spread, becoming compulsory in many states. Learning was focused on basic literacy, math, morality and civics. Then localities provided funds that led to disparities between wealthier and poorer areas. Up through World War II, John Dewey's progressive era focused on child-centered education, with hands-on learning and emphasis on critical thinking. But as industrialization emerged, vocational learning prepared students for the workforce. The wave of immigration led to education that prepared students and parents for citizenship by learning the language and customs. One of the great additions to education was the GI Bill. This allowed returning war veterans to attend college. Many became teachers and were very good at it at the grade school and high school levels. The major changes to education, from Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, which declared segregation unconstitutional, to Sputnik in 1957, which generated STEM, are well-known. And alarms have been sounded since. A Nation at Risk, a 1983 federal report that warned of a "rising tide of mediocrity" in education, spurred calls for reform. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 required states to test students annually and imposed sanctions on underperforming schools. Common Core in the 2010s set voluntary national standards to unify learning goals, especially in math and English. Renewed focus on addressing achievement gaps by race, socioeconomic status and disability emerged. Emphasis on critical thinking, collaboration, digital literacy and problem-solving were added to Increasing diversity among students. As politics became more divisive, education was caught in the ideological crossfire between parties. The Republican Right saw charter schools and parental right to choose as the path to success. Democrats, supported by teachers' unions, dissented. But one outcome was unmistakable. Educational standards declined precipitously. Similarly, universities were accused of being far more progressive and left wing. After the Oct. 7, 2022, Hamas atrocities in which more than 1,200 Israelis and a handful of Americans were slaughtered, student activists took over campuses, condemning Israel and supporting the terrorists. For many Americans, this was inconceivable and reminded the nation of the Vietnam War and racial protests. Further, some rules were nonsensical. In some cases, schools were not required to inform parents if students requested sexual transitions largely from male to female. That immature children could make such a profound decision without parental knowledge was absurd. What to do? Closing the Education Department, assuming Congress consents, is not the answer. Savings from cutting people are de minimis. And the transfer of payments to states and other organizations will continue. The answer is simple. Education depends on competent professional people who are incentivized and given the necessary tools to teach well. Unless school districts can increase these benefits, elevating education standards will not occur. Instead of closing the Education Department, Congress and president should focus on the first-order crisis. We need more, good people to teach. But will we get them? Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist; senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council; chairman of a private company; and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with General The Lord David Richards, former U.K. chief of defense and due out late next year, is Arc of Failure: Can Decisive Strategic Thinking Transform a Dangerous World? The writer can be reached on X @harlankullman. --
