…If only. I find that the student culture, the “culture of schoolchildren,” as well as the fights and friendships that influence the positive or negative experiences of schoolchildren, to be overvalued. I’m not saying that friendships and social experiences do not play a role in schooling. If I were I’d be markedly delusional, naïve, and socially unperceptive. Rather I find that the role of social interaction should be mitigated, marginal to curricula-based learning, and secondary to measurable educational standards and testing.
When you go to school you are there to learn, to absorb material that is unattainable elsewhere. The cultures that socialize an individual, from friendship to economic status to religion to media, are constantly webbed and interwoven into all experiences. There is no real need to foster such cultures while in school because they already interject and define all aspects of social interaction naturally. When such cultures – cultures that do not directly relate to or facilitate quantifiable educational stimuli – play a greater role, they cause a direct decline in the primary labeled areas of focus (whether it be in math, reading, science, social studies, religion, philosophy, etc.).
Take for example the kindergarten case from the mini-lecture. If the student body, at the age of five, is capable teach “kids to count or to read or to know their colors and shapes.” That is the point of school! It is the reason a child attends kindergarten. The social interactions that the teacher in that case emphasized, to the desertion of subject-based learning, occur automatically. It is exactly that attitude – one that imposes an imbalanced weight on social training, interaction, and discipline – which hinders growth. In the US, this attitude is most prevalent. The standards of old and the educational syllabi have been sidelined. Statistically, US children are behind in standard subject examination scores compared to other Western countries. School is primarily for learning not socializing. Students will socialize anyway, so focus on the task at hand.
Personally, beyond the scope of kindergarten, I find this to be a major issue in my current learning experience. It is in fact an issue I have with Macaulay Honors and the Music Conservatory at Brooklyn College. In Macaulay, seminars, class discussions, forced collaborations, and group activities are overly assigned. I understand the benefits of such interactions, as well as the goals intended, but the forced social interactions have often become obsessions. What happened to textbooks and lectures? I have found that my most productive and long lasting endeavors in Macaulay were when I was sitting in a classroom analyzing texts through lecture and traditional discussion, not through activities. The same goes for my music composition major. It has become all too frequent that forced interactions are imposed in order to familiarize students with social scenes, settings, and people. I often think – what about the music itself? In both cases, music and Macaulay, I don’t want to give the impression that they are bad programs, rather that regarding the topic of socializing versus learning, the latter is often abandoned in favor of the culture of human interaction.
So the course is now officially over, your final grades are posted, and I'm having a hard time admitting that we're finished! But since we've had a course (and a terrific course, thanks to all of you) about the future of education, I guess it doesn't really have to be done. When are we "finished" with the future? 
I think one thing we’re seeing (and we keep seeing it!) in the diversity of opinions here in the comments is that “best practices” in learning aren’t ever going to be one thing.
We try really hard with the Macaulay common events to give students an opportunity to build community, but in a productive, challenging, and flexible way–not forced or artificial community. And sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.
I’ve been talking to students about the Macaulay seminars over the past year (and I’ll continue to talk!) and I keep hearing two different things–“We want all the seminars to be more the same. We don’t like it when our classmates on other campuses, or even the same campus, have totally different experiences in the seminars.” And I hear “We’re so glad that the seminars are all different, and get to match the individual interests of the different professors.”
We need, I think, to do a better job of communicating to students what the purpose of these seminars is–why we have you all take all of them, and how we see them as fitting together. And I think we need to get more consistency, not so much in content, but in quality, of what goes on in the seminars. It’s yet another area where I think all of you can help!
I do agree with the value of friendships and social interactions. However, my issue is more regarding the (lack of) balance between social interaction and traditional learning.
Social interaction is inherent in all communal aspects of life, whether it be work, school, or through religious matters. The social dynamic that many of you are describing, the value your placing on specific stories, I agree, is in fact valuable. But you gain such interactions at work too, and well… in summer camp.
There needs to be an extreme difference between camp and school. I’m not saying that school has just turned into a camp (although in some cases it has). But fostering social interaction above books and pencils leads down such a path and is the wrong method. As for the kindergarten example – you all made strong points regarding the necessity of teaching proper social interaction and discipline to young children. However, the point of that case is to stress how the teacher claimed that kindergarten is not to “teach kids to count or to read or to know their colors.” It’s this attitude that pushes the boundary too far and tips the scale away from a proper equilibrium.
Also, regarding Macaulay, the events such as walking tours and site seeing are valuable. They fall under the rubric of traditional learning despite the social element of such events. It’s the meetings, the excessive group discussions, the games (think freshman year), and the overall stress on group activity and interaction that – although valuable to some degree – often obstructs measurable growth in traditional education.
When it comes to Macaulay specifically, I think I have to disagree with you. In my experience, they’ve done a really good job of not forcing friendships or socialization on us. Rather, common events and seminar classes give us opportunities to have these social interactions – and to extend them beyond class if we wish. I like having these opportunities, since I think the rest of my college experience is somewhat devoid of them. As for the ‘games’ freshman year (I assume you’re referring to orientation?) I am probably biased, but I thought that was a great way to promote interaction among students and, even if you didn’t like it, it was a one-time deal. All colleges include games as part of their orientations, with good reason. Though in college, we may no longer go to school to see Ben and Ally (see December’s reflection) in fact, Ben and Ally may not even go to school with us, since there are so many other opportunities for social interaction in a place like NYC. However, if we didn’t have Ben and Ally in our lives, which affects our attitude and outlook on life (and therefore school) would we be going to school? Enjoying it? Doing well? But perhaps I am biased when it comes to Macaulay, since my best friend and I met at orientation 🙂
I do understand your general point that in American public schools, too much of an emphasis has been put on socialization over academics, and that we are therefore behind other western countries in these subject areas. Yet there is no standardized test for socialization. Yes, we need to find a better balance – but are we perhaps ahead in ‘socialization’? I don’t actually know or have an answer to this question, but I can think of plenty of jobs and careers where these socialization skills are vital: from minimum wage jobs in the service industry to lawyers and businessmen brokering million-dollar deals.
I can certainly relate to the sometimes excessive emphasis on social interaction when circumstances may call for a textbook and exams. However, I think more credit should be given to the value of social skills and their role in schools. In kindergarten specifically, I think that teaching the children to share and wait their turn is almost, if not equally important as colors and shapes. When a child is young and his or her brain is most malleable, still bridging connections and forming new links, it is vital at this time in particular that a sense of morality is instilled in them. If we want these children to grow up to become responsible and law-abiding citizens, it is crucial that they learn these virtues at an age during which they are most receptive. And while parents and other adults share this duty to a certain degree, children for the most part will interact with one another in school. They may socialize in alternative settings, but these interactions may go unmonitored. It seems most practical to learn proper conduct for a certain behavior in the place one is to spend the most time. And so the opportunity to help children distinguish between right and wrong falls largely on the teacher.
As we get older however, I agree that the value placed on social interaction becomes superfluous. By the time most kids are in high school, even middle school, their social skills are largely developed and any advice on how to improve these skills would fall on deaf ears. I too, have noticed courses now devoting large parts of the curriculum to group work and activities. There are times when these projects prove valuable, allowing me to gain hands-on experience. But often these activities are surrounded by group sharing of thoughts and feelings, which I find often to be negligible in worth in comparison to research or lecture.
I feel like social interactions and activities are extremely important in the learning process at every level of school. Especially for younger students the non-academic things they learn in school such as discipline, how to form relationships and how to behave in a social setting are very important to the developing child. There is only a certain window where kids can develop and learn those skills and unfortunately a lot of children are not being taught that at home. I agree that they should also be taught the benchmarks for the grade level, but it also needs to be integrated with social activities so that they can continue to work on the skills that they will absolutely need through the rest of their lives.
As far as all of the ‘overly assigned’ activities that are given in Macaulay seminars, I think that is a huge and important part of the curriculum. The seminars are based on aspects about New York City. We have the city at our disposal and the best way to learn about it is to get out and explore. It is not the same as a history class or a math class where you can’t actively go and participate in a tangible way.
When it comes to schoolwork and class activities, I prefer an environment that is conducive for socializing and human interaction. I know that the relationships I have formed in college through classes have had a greater and more influential impact on my life than the subject matter I have studied. My friends have also taught me more than any textbook or lecture. Sure, the time I spend with them might not count towards credits for graduation, but I never regret it.
I agree that I’ve learned a lot from the relationships I’ve formed. One thing that’s interesting though is how broad the demographic is for a school? For example, I went to a public school where there was a lot of homogeny. I mean in the sense that we all fell into the same income bracket, same ethnic background, same family dynamic. I went to school with this same group of students from elementary school to high school. I learned an awful lot from friendships in that school with people who were outliers in some way (their parents were divorced, they were either more wealthy or had less money than the average, etc.)
I feel like social interactions and activities are extremely important in the learning process at every level of school. Especially for younger students the non-academic things they learn in school such as discipline, how to form relationships and how to behave in a social setting are very important to the developing child. There is only a certain window where kids can develop and learn those skills and unfortunately a lot of children are not being taught that at home. I agree that they should also be taught the benchmarks for the grade level, but it also needs to be integrated with social activities so that they can continue to work on the skills that they will absolutely need through the rest of their lives.
As far as all of the ‘overly assigned’ activities that are given in Macaulay seminars, I think that is a huge and important part of the curriculum. The seminars are based on aspects about New York City. We have the city at our disposal and the best way to learn about it is to get out and explore. It is not the same as a history class or a math class where you can actively go and participate in a tangible way.
When it comes to schoolwork and class activities, I prefer an environment that is conducive for socializing and human interaction. I know that the relationships I have formed in college through classes have had a greater and more influential impact on my life than the subject matter I have studied. My friends have also taught me more than any textbook or lecture. Sure, the time I spend with them might not count towards credits for graduation, but I never regret it.