This is my UTNE Reader Page....

-- Anonymous, November 11, 1998

Answers

November 98....My Response to my first UTNE Reader article....

Article Chosen: Learning in the Key of Life, by Jon Spayde, May-June 98 issue, page 45

I chose to read the article called Learning in the Key of Life, which was the cover story of this particular issue. Originally, this article caught my eye right off simply because of the title. Right away, the first thing that popped in my head, even before reading it, was success...and how lifes success is more times than not related to education. However, I soon found out after reading the article, that my original thoughts were quite different than those written by the author.

Within the very first paragraph, it talks of a meaningful life. And, as I found out by reading further, these two words became much of the heart of the article. Just as I had thought by only first seeing the title, the meaning of education for most in todays world is training for competitiveness. Education must prepare all for the challenges that lie ahead in life. The question here is...just what is meant by prepare? Most of us can easily answer this question. You know....skills.....the kind of skills needed in the work place etc.. This article does not deny the fact that these skills are extremely important. It admits that it is these skills (or education) that creates the different classes of society. Those with the right skills probably have the advantage, therefore, the opportunity for more success.

In discussing the idea of the skills mentioned above, it was extremely obvious to me that the author had a great dislike to the current situation of the importance society has put on technology. Various times within the article, the author took shots at computers and their importance we put on them. More specifically, he poked at the way we put these skills at the top of the list. Personally, I got a charge out of his obvious dislike toward technology and its ways. I wonder if someone unplugged his machine just at the point when he was almost through typing this article...and he forgot to back it up.

The author at this point steers in another direction of thought. He writes of the area of humanities and the importance of learning these types of skills. He quotes Earl Shorris, a novelist and journalist, in saying The humanities are a foundation for getting along in the world, for thinking, for learning to reflect on the world instead of just reacting to whatever force is turned against you. Up and above those traditional skills we normally think of, humanity skills can be known as slow knowledge, as opposed to fast knowledge. Slow knowledge helps to give our lives aesthetic, spiritual, and social meaning. Slow knowledge adds richness and meaning to our lives. Maybe education and learning throughout our lives does not always have to be based on learning new skills. Just maybe education can be an avenue to enhance our lives internally which, in turn, will lead to helping us externally. Preparing us for the needs of life seems to take on a new meaning. Maybe we need to take a new look at how we actually measure success!

-- Anonymous, November 24, 1998

I read the article "Learning In The Key of Life" on page 45.

I found the question "what does it mean to be educated?" very interesting. I tend to agree with the author that American education is leaning heavily on training students for the work force of the twenty-first century of which computers will be an important element. However, I think that Americans today are more concerned with monetary status and power than past generations. We tend to view education as a stepping stone to a high paying position at a company where we can earn six figure salaries without getting our hands dirty. I also liked the way the author touched on the importance of the humanities in a well-rounded education. I believe there is a connection to education and what happens in our everyday lives. I enjoyed the quote by Goethe; "people cannot learn what they do not love." I guess to be truly educated we must figure out what we love.

-- Anonymous, November 29, 1998

Scott, I enjoyed your take on the author's little jab at our current obsession with technology. I was wondering how you, a techno person, would take this. I think that we have shifted in education recently. Maybe it's even a dangerous shift. I think that a tremendous amount of money, time, and energy has been tossed at the technology whirlwind. Much of it seems to be constantly whirling out of our reach with diminished returns to our students. The very nature of technology seems to demand this approach, however. It's a constant expensive cycle. Money is appropriated to update the technology. The technology is purchased and installed. Students and staff begin getting trained (this part of the process takes 3-5 years)then there are new applications which requires new technology and new training. It goes on and on. I believe that encouraging students to learn and love the "classics" is being pushed to the back burner. I definitely feel the push to create a student 'product' who has skills that somebody else can make money with. The promise to the student is that they will make enough money to become good consumers. I know this is very communistic thinking. I'd like to hear your opinion. Do your think that meager educational funds are disproportionately spent for the purpose of creating techno money-making workers as opposed to "world citizens" who can put themselves "into the minds and lives of divergent groups and cultures"?

-- Anonymous, December 30, 1998

The following is my summary / response to The Art of Genius, by Michael Michalko from the August 1998 issue of UTNE Reader:

The Art of Genius article in the August 1998 issue of UTNE Reader is an attempt by author Michael Michalko to to grasp the idea of what it takes to be a genius. In this article, Mr. Michalko strives to answer some of the questions relating to the qualities that make up a genius. What type of thought processes do they go through? What qualities do they have that we could learn from? Are there similarities between some of the known high I.Q. thinkers? Just what makes them tick?

Michalko first explains that some of the early studies based on known patterns and statistics proved nothing. Patterns could not be found. Many known geniuses came from many diverse backgrounds, stature, and income brackets. Also, to many peoples surprise, Genius qualities were not necessarily related to the level of their I.Q. score. The mere fact that someone had a very high I.Q. score did not always coincide with genius qualities.

Just what is it then that makes up the qualities of a genius? What special things do they have that ascends them to that high level? What makes them so different than the rest of us? One of the most important factor that Michalko mentions as being the magic factor is the ability to think productively. So...what the heck does this mean? I can think productively, so I must be a genius, right? Not so fast. Michalko further explains himself this way: Most of us tend to tackle a problem by reaching a conclusion based on the variables that we have been given throughout our life. In other words, we solve things by pulling together the known things within our environment and then attempt to deduct our answer based solely on these known variables. For the most part, this is good enough and normally gets us by. But, in contrast, a genius approaches the problem in a different way. A genius will ask, How many ways can I look at this problem? and How many ways can I solve it?. He does not always jump right to the pieces he knows of to solve the problem but, instead, concentrates on the problem itself...looking for many new ways to look at the problem itself...before even trying to solve it yet.

Michalko comments that reproductive thinking fosters rigidity. This comment was one of the main ideas that struck me. He goes on to explain that analyzing a problem based on past experience can lead you astray. I couldnt help but to think about how this idea fits into the current structure of schools and education. Are we allowing students to look at the various problems we give them in a way which fits into this structure? Or are we truly giving them opportunities for productive thinking. A method which allows them to look at a problem in various, sometimes non-traditional, ways. Is our system set up in such a way that because of class sizes, time restraints, and tradition we funnel their minds into only focusing on the problem with the skills that were only taught in class? Just how do we expect students to lead in the future if all they have to go on is the methods and information that theyve gathered in the past? I realize that these are the only things that any of us have to work with. However, maybe we simply dont often enough allow for this type of thinking.

Michalko goes on to explain what he believes to be some of the qualities that make up a genius. Geniuses make their thoughts visible and display their thoughts in different ways. Geniuses have a high level of productivity and keep their minds actively pursuing something. Geniuses constantly combine ideas, thoughts, and images. Geniuses have a high facility to connect things which seem to be unconnected to force relationships. Geniuses think in opposites but yet can see resemblances in seemingly unrelated things. Geniuses welcome and prepare for creative accidents...true open mindedness.

If these are many of the qualities that make up a genius. Id like to revisit the idea of schools and education. In taking a step back, do we actually allow for this type of open thinking in our schools? Maybe here and there...but I question as to if its even close to being enough. Can we really afford this? I dont think so!

-- Anonymous, January 18, 1999

The following is my response to my 3rd Utne Reader:

For my third Utne Reader article, I chose to read the article titled The $100 Christmas. This article can be found in the November- December issue on page 62. In his article, Bill McKibben explains how his family, along with other families belonging to the United Methodist Church located in the upper east coast had made the decision to keep their entire Christmas expenses under $100. Within the article, McKibben describes some of the activities that he and his family take part in within their Christmas season. In addition, he also includes many comments and personal feelings about the idea of commercialism and the holiday season. It is this idea that I would like to provide further comment.

I grew up in a family of six children, of which I am the fifth. Christmas day at our home was filled with presents and activity. Being that their were six children to provide presents for, you can imagine how full the Christmas tree appeared on Christmas morning. Even though each child typically received three presents on average, the total still appeared overwhelming. I can just imagine what it must have been like for my parents to obtain all of these gifts for all of us. It was obvious that my parents truly enjoyed watching all of us open our gifts, but I cant help to think that the overall holiday season was stressful to say the least. Like most families, their pocketbook was put under extreme pressure. McKibben talks of this pressure in his article. Should this type of stress be part of the holiday season?

As all us grew into our teen years, I distinctly remember my dad suggesting that our family Christmas be changed. Because we were all more mature, he probably figured that we would better understand where he was coming from. He suggested that we dont worry about scrambling around trying to find gifts for one another. Instead, why not put on a Christmas feast...a special Christmas dinner including special foods that we would normally not eat throughout the year. Each person would be responsible for bringing their own special Christmas dish. He went on to suggest that if gifts were to be purchased, they would only be for the smaller children. Each year this idea was brought up, we all thought it would be a great idea. However, it seemed that as each season came and went, we fell back into the same old Christmas tradition. Everyone still scrambled to find gifts for one another, therefore another stressful holiday season.

Why is it that the holidays are so stressful? When did all of this take place? How did we all allow this to happen? Why is it so difficult to simplify Christmas? Have we allowed materialism to cloud our view of the real joy of Christmas? How can a holiday which is stuffed with so much potential, feel somehow empty? I applaud the families in this article. I cant help but think that they experienced a much more deeply enjoyable holiday season!

-- Anonymous, March 10, 1999

Scott, I enjoyed reading your Unte response. With both Bob and I both working, I have found it next to impossible to shop for all, and enjoy Christmas. After reading the article, The $100 Christmas , I have to think Bill McKibben and your dad have the right ideas for christmas. McKibben encourages us to take the pressures and stresses out of Christmas by spending less and your dad proposes a Christmas feast. We should give it a try.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 1999

The following is my response to my 4th Utne Reader:

Kimbrell, Andrew, Breaking the Job Lock. UTNE Reader (January- February 1999), p. 47-49 Andrew Kimbrell writes a dreamy and imaginative article about the idea of the pursuit of meaningful work. I chose to label it imaginative because I felt that that Kimbrell had a slightly unrealistic, oversimplified view of how the working world should be. He spends a great deal of effort explaining the origins and development of the work force over the course of history. He writes that we need work that is good for body, mind and spirit: work that sustains family and community: work that connects us with and helps us protect the natural world. In my opinion, about the only thing that he seemed to leave out in his fairy tale was the fact that after all of this, everyone should live happily ever after! Please do not get me wrong. I am in agreement with much of what he had to say within his article. I strongly believe that true job satisfaction extends far beyond the actual paycheck itself. The attitude that you have about your job and whether you are fortunate enough to enjoy your duties play a more important factor in obtaining true job satisfaction. Unfortunately, far too many people are holding down occupations which they do not enjoy. Most people feel that they do not have the luxury of shopping around for the perfect job. Necessity is number one and most people simply need whatever they can get to survive. Id be the first in line to support an effort like the one that Kimbrell describes. However, I believe that its too big of a monster to try to handle. Society itself would have to change before there would be enough fulfilling jobs to go around for everyone. But...it would make for a good dream!

-- Anonymous, May 07, 1999

Hi Scott, Even though you've submitted your 4th Utne, I want to comment on your #3 entry. (Better late than never?) I too, read that same article from the Nov./ Dec. Utne. I am always bothered by the way we celebrate Christmas, and yet , like your family, it is so hard to break long-standing traditions. As the main shopper in the family, I have started to shop early so I can be done and enjoy the "important part" of the holiday. I love to see my kids open and enjoy their gifts , but I wish I could change the focus. Commercialism has me trapped too!

-- Anonymous, May 14, 1999