How Modern Education Fails

My entire life I have clawed through school, through the same multiple-choice exams, through the same standardized tests, through the same blue and green scantrons. Every essay started the same way, every answer had a right or wrong answer, and the room for educated discussion was slim. I’ve now reached the point in my education where I could fill out a Scantron™ in my sleep. My brain is wracked when I try to start an essay with anything other than three sentences and a thesis. As a hopeful journalist, I had to rewrite my brain matter in order to write in a more journalistic sense. Now I am an avid and enthusiastic writer but under the constraints of standardized education, I found it tedious and unenjoyable. When my options opened my writing flourished and my current passion bloomed, and I felt more actualized as an individual.

The particular problem in this education system is covered by both George Ritzer and Paulo Freire but in different aspects.

Freire highlights the education system as a form of oppression, as students and teachers are forced into roles that they carry with them through life, and that the education system itself is flawed in the way that it aims to teach individuals. Freire uses the term banking to describe how people are taught, for example, “Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in “changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them”;1 for the more the oppressed can be led to adapt to that situation, the more easily they can be dominated. To achieve this end, the oppressors use the banking concept of education in conjunction with a paternalistic social action apparatus, within which the oppressed receive the euphemistic title of “welfare recipients.” They are required to retain knowledge that isn’t necessarily applicable to constant use and only aims to answer questions out of a booklet. “Narration (with the teacher as narrator) leads the students to memorize mechanically the narrated content. Worse yet, it turns them into “containers,” into “receptacles” to be “filled” by the teacher. The more completely she fills the receptacles, the better a teacher she is. The more meekly the receptacles permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are,” says Freire.

Ritzer follows the same vein of thinking with his idea of the “McDonaldization” of education in which everything is tightly packed and made more economical and efficient. Similar to a McDonald’s, Ritzer poses, all aspects of modern society are consistently striving for more efficient techniques and practices to create a more productive society. Education under this lens becomes a jumbled mess of standardized tests and questions sent directly from the textbook distributors to the teachers for free. Multiple-choice tests become the norm, and students are all tested on the same metrics as opposed to individual merits.

“One is the machine-graded, multiple-choice examination. In a much earlier era, students were examined individually by their professors. This may have been a good way to find out what students knew, but it was highly labor-intensive and inefficient. Later, the essay examination became very popular. While grading a set of essays was more efficient than giving individual oral examinations, it was still relatively inefficient and time-consuming. Enter the multiple-choice examination, the grading of which was a snap. In fact, graduate assistants could grade it, making it even more efficient for the professor. Now there are computer-graded examinations that maximize efficiency for both professors and graduate assistants. They even offer advantages to students, such as making it easier to study and limiting the effect of the subjective views of the grader on the grading process,” writes Ritzer.

In a society based on the models, Freire and Ritzer posed people become nothing more than numbers and statistics. “It is not surprising that the banking concept of education regards men as adaptable, manageable beings. The more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of that world. The more completely they accept the passive role imposed on them, the more they tend simply to adapt to the world as it is and to the fragmented view of reality deposited in them,” writes Freire about these students growing with no critical consciousness and then being controlled by the governing bodies leading to systems of oppression.

So the two forms feed into each other in this endless feedback loop where two of the aims of the elite are met at the same time, systematic oppression, and more efficiency than lending into a more subservient and malleable populace, for example, “Publishers have provided other services to make teaching more efficient for those professors who adopt their textbooks. With the adoption of a textbook, a professor may receive many materials with which to fill class hours — lecture outlines, computer simulations, discussion questions, video tapes, movies, even ideas for guest lecturers and student projects. Professors who choose to use all these devices need do little or nothing on their own for their classes,” Ritzer continues, “Finally, worth noting is the development of a relatively new type of “service” on college campuses. For a nominal fee, students are provided with lecture notes, from instructors, teaching assistants, and top-notch students, for their courses.” The entire learning process from end to end can have little to no input from the people taking part in it.

Depression and Humor

There is a particular archetype at play in modern media, and that is of the tortured comic full of hate, grief, and despair. This was heavily discussed in 2014 following the tragic death and suicide of beloved actor and comic Robin Williams, who on most accounts appeared well adjusted, content, and happy even after his battles with depression, alcoholism, and cocaine addiction. The humor of Williams is often seen as a coping mechanism for the internal torment that he endured. So why does it seem that the funniest people are the ones with the most internal strife?

In a 2014 article titled Robin Williams and the Mask of Humor, by Mikhail Lyubansky, Ph.D., Lyubansky recalls his work with incarcerated youths, “Over the years, I’ve met well over 100 kids. Some are so sad they are unable to utter more than a few words. Others are angry and resentful about being where they are, again. Another group tries to play it cool. Each type presents its own challenge, but there’s another group that is harder to reach than any of the rest — the entertainers.” Lyubansky highlights the disconnect with those specific people, “these are the kids who have learned how to make others laugh. They’ve also learned that, in that comedic moment, they can temporarily forget about their incarcerated fathers, their abusive uncles, their substance-dependent mothers, and all the other troubles in their life. In that comedic moment, they hurt just a bit less. And so they grasp every opportunity to entertain and, in doing so, cover up the pain.”

Each type presents its own challenge, but there’s another group that is harder to reach than any of the rest — the entertainers.

Lyubansky isn’t saying that depression and self-hate aren’t tied to humor and that depressed people aren’t necessarily funnier but instead, some depressed people foster a sense of humor as a defense mechanism, and because humor can be so universal and socially acceptable the walls remain intact and if anything only continues to grow. Since humor appears outwardly happy then a lot of troubling symptoms aren’t as apparent, just like the case of Robin Williams.

Detroit: Become Human and the Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence

The state of modern artificial intelligence is nothing more than probability, machine learning, and statistical analysis, but people have thought over the ramifications of true artificial intelligence before computers even existed, like Samuel Butler’s 1872 novel Erewhon which drew on his own 1863 article “Darwin and His Machines.”

Since the loose introduction into media by Butler, the consequences of Artificial Intelligence have become a staple of pop culture and fiction. But where do technology end and intelligent cognisant beings begin? What makes us or anything else human?

This question is tackled by Detroit: Become Human, the 2018 game by David Cage and Quantic Dream. The story, set in Detroit Michigan, follows three main characters, Connor, Markus, and Kara, each of them ultra-realistic androids that eventually gain free will and sentience along with many other androids in the city. The story focuses on the possible humanity of the sentient androids, and what the androids should do with their newfound sentience. Detroit gives you many options to alter the story, with branching paths and narratives that change with the choices that you make. Something as simple as choosing to play the piano as opposed to reading a book could have lasting effects on the story.

The story of Detroit: Become Human is obviously impossible with current technology and based on this Forbes article on Artificial Intelligence we may never reach a true human-like artificial intelligence, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t gain anything from it.

Rene Descartes famously coined, “Cogito, ergo sum,” which translates to, “I think, therefore I am.” The phrase is one of the most famous philosophical sayings along with sayings like Nietzche’s “God is dead and we have killed him,” and Socrates’ “An unexamined life is not worth living.” Descartes’ saying has long been theorized to aim to solve questions of reality, humanity, identity, consciousness, and meaning, and is essential when it comes to examining the deeper meaning of Detroit: Become Human.

Human identity and consciousness have been a consistent point of contention for most philosophers since the days of Socrates because what exactly makes us, us? Look to the Ship of Theseus, a philosophical thought experiment in which every piece of a ship through wear and tear is eventually replaced on a ship, and then a new ship is eventually made from the discarded parts. The thought experiment then poses a question. What ship is the original ship? Think of us like billions of walking ships of Theseus, because in a similar way our bodies over a period of seven years replace every single cell that was previously there. After a period of seven years, not a single cell in your body is the same as it was seven years prior, therefore are we the same person? Most people would say, of course, that obviously, we’re the same, but why? Here we circle back to Descartes, “I think, therefore I am.”

So by following this logic, what makes an android in Detroit: Become Human any less human than a regular person? The androids have wants and needs, regrets and sadness, love and happiness, they have good and bad memories and have goals looking toward the future. An interesting wrinkle in this is the fact that the androids were created by humans, but to the religious among us how is that any different than a divine creator?

So then how should one treat a being that thinks and feels like a human?

The question of morality centering on the treatment of artificial intelligence has its roots in human history of mistreatment based on physical differences. In Detroit: Become Human the androids are disposable tools treated as less than human very similar to American slavery and the years of segregation following the end of slavery. But the androids strive for life, they want to stay alive, take, for example, the moment in which one of the main characters, Markus, is left to rot in an android scrap yard. Any of the androids that are still functioning in the scrap yard are wandering, scared, and even begging to stay alive.

Another of the main androids, Kara, is taken home by her owner, Todd, who threatens and berates her, and even before her sentience Kara displays some forms of fear.

Androids themselves are ruthlessly mistreated by their human owners even with the androids maintaining some basic form of sentience before the story kicks off. This harkens back to American slavery, and slavery abroad, with very sentient, very intelligent humans being treated as lowly as cattle, being treated as disposable as property.

False Balance in Journalism

“Are you going to give five minutes to the Nazis and five minutes to the Jews?”

This was one of the first things that truly stuck out to me in Journalism school, sitting in a quiet intro journalism class, lit, badly I might add, by buzzing fluorescent bulbs. My brain was resting elsewhere until it was yanked back in by that question.

At that point in my life, I wasn’t very sure what I wanted to do, I was only in my second or third semester of college, and had no real passion to speak of, journalism was always a backup plan of sorts, and as a result, I didn’t treat those early classes with the respect that I would today. Instead, I spent most of the time zoning out to the clicking of decades outdated computers, until this class.

The question of media coverage on particular subjects like Nazis and Jews isn’t as simple as it seems on the surface. Think for a second that you’ve been writing for a newspaper for many years, decades even. You’ve been burned by scaldingly hot readers for doing your damnedest at remaining impartial and providing a fair voice to two sides in a story, even if that cost you hours of sleep and a few gray hairs. It feels like an affront to some eldritch newspaper god if you don’t find whatever way you can to cover each side fairly, and if you don’t you’ll be smitten accordingly, though the keyword there is fairly.

To many uninitiated and even some long-time journalists, the words fairly and equally are interchangeable terms, meaning practically the same thing to them even though they hide a bias that is inescapable in all forms of media, not just journalism.

We are humans, we are fallible, and even the most hardened of journalists still have personal opinions, and many times that opinion shows up, sometimes unintentionally through what we don’t cover, through what we leave out. This is where journalists can show their true impartiality, however, by covering topics with an eye keyed in on facts, and facts alone, and reporting those facts.

Now, the media only reporting the facts, and giving facts a platform doesn’t exactly seem like a novel concept but you’d be surprised. One of the most pertinent examples of that can be found in media coverage of vaccines.

Many trace the origin of the modern anti-vaxxer movement to the 1982 “documentary” DPT: Vaccine Roulette, produced by a WRC-TV reporter, Lea Thompson. Thompson’s piece won an Emmy for its reporting on the risks associated with the DPT vaccine…except there is basically no evidence supporting the claims made throughout, and was torn apart by experts.

Dr. Martin Levy, administrator of preventive health services for the D.C. Department of Human Services said to the Washington Post in 1982, “From the data I have seen, there is no indication that we should stop using the vaccine.”

The case for Lea Thompson and much of the media manipulation we see regarding vaccines, and media manipulation as a whole generally plays off of an appeal to Pathos, or a direct appeal to emotions in order to stir up controversy. These examples are often set up as sympathetic mothers, normal people, and underdogs versus the medical establishment, and cold, unfeeling doctors.

This type of media coverage has damaging repercussions, take, for example, the case of Dr, Andrew Wakefield.

Wakefield is famous for a 1998 study that linked the MMR measles vaccine with a risk of autism in children. This study was picked up in a media frenzy and Wakefield was lauded as a vaccine expert from the “other side of the aisle” that could offer some credence to otherwise unsupported positions.

I should add that soon after Wakefield’s study it came out that he was paid an amount of nearly $665,000 dollars by lawyers in order to fund the study, and those lawyers used the findings from the study to sue vaccine makers. Wakefield was also accused of fudging numbers in order to better fit his narrative.

Other studies in subsequent years also found no connection between MMR and autism, some of these studies spanning a near population-level sample size. Wakefield’s paper has since been redacted by the journal that published it.

Even with the controversy surrounding Wakefield, he was still used as an expert by media organizations. In a 2000 episode of 60 Minutes Wakefield, along with parents, is used as a singular scientific expert on vaccine dangers versus multiple other experts, creating a false dichotomy of evidence. This type of depiction leads people to believe that if two sides are offered similar amounts of air time then there must be similar amounts of evidence.

A 2002 special from BBC called Every Parent’s Choice falls to the same trappings and also uses Wakefield as an expert. Wakefield and the anti-vax interviewees are never pressed in the special and instead, the burden of proof is left with the scientists and researchers interviewed in the piece.

Philosopher Alfred Archer said this about false balance in media, “By giving significant attention to outsider positions within the scientific community journalists run the risk of sending the message that expert opinion is more evenly divided than in fact is the case.”

The results are apparent as well. Following Wakefield and his findings, measles flourished in the UK, the US, and elsewhere in the world.

This is not an attack on the media, however. In an environment where many media organizations keep the lights on by keeping eyes and ears to their work stories with strong conflict and emotional stakes is a strong draw. People can see themselves as desperate parents just trying to keep their kids safe, acting as underdogs against a system that has not been infallible.

Especially since the stories involve our children it makes for great television, but journalists have a responsibility to comb through that, to tell the real story, not just the one that people want to hear.

Would you give five minutes to the Jews and five minutes to the Nazis?