How To Choose a Subject Combination or Course of Study

This is a far easier question to answer than the previous one, but it requires some technical work. You need to answer a few questions and then consider the consequences of following through on your answers if they are indeed accurate.

1. Have you already decided what you want to do with your life? If you have, then it's obvious that you need an education that will equip you for your life's work. If you are going to be a lawyer, you need a law degree; if you're going to be a politician it doesn't matter but it's probably good to go to a top-10 school (or top 3 if in Atlantis).

2. Do you really value education? This is hard to answer convincingly. However, most authorities agree that knowledge, and by extension education, requires that you know how to evaluate logical truth, aesthetic value, and moral reasoning by some sort of standard — preferably one that you have worked out for yourself. If that's the case, then you should apply yourself across a range of disciplines, beginning with those you have most difficulty with, since cognitive dissonance is the key to education.

3. Do you accurately value education? This isn't a dressier version of #2. Rather, it's a question of pragmatic evaluation. Generally, it's more expensive to pursue lab-based courses as a private student. It's more likely true that studying chemistry or medicine at a university allows you to get a better education than pursuing such disciplines on your own. It is more plausibly true that you can study languages, literature(s) and humanities profitably outside a university or school. Of course, the community you have available to you is important, and good schools tend to have more challenging communities. The issue here is that if you can't decide, it's better to first take a course that needs equipment you can't get at home.

4. Do you understand what subjects are about? Supposing you were being interviewed for a course in geography, and someone asked you, "How large is Africa relative to India?" what would you say? How would you approach the answer? What would a geographer think about instinctively? Would you be thinking of things like the idea of map projections, visual representations of economic and demographic data, physical structures of the earth's surface? Of greater importance, what differentiates a student of a given discipline from a non-student of that discipline in terms of mindset and perspective? If asked to defend your choice of subject, would you be able to defend it in terms of its internal rationale?

5. Who recommended this course of study/subject combination to you? It's best to think about why people recommend courses. Quite often, parents and people from that generation are about 5-30 years (5d6, for those who like such things) behind the curve. Employers think most frequently of what they need now, not what they will need when you graduate. If you speak to a visionary with a proven track record, like Steve Jobs, then you might get a better idea. Or not. But it's always good to try to understand the biases behind recommendations — even in this post and this blog as a whole.

Again, if you're having problems answering these questions, the answers to some problems may be found elsewhere in this blog. If not, don't hesitate to contact me. I don't bite. Much.

The Inconstant Gardner

Quite a while ago, I remember reading a book by John Le Carré called The Constant Gardener. At that time, it struck me that something was wrong about the title. It wasn't until a while had passed that I realised what had been bugging me.

The thing that was bugging me was the beatification of 'St Howard Gardner', a phenomenon which is truly catholic in its application over a wide range of school systems and abortive attempts at educational enhancement. In Gardner's book, Intelligence Reframed, he confesses his alarm at seeing the implementation of a mishmash of his own ideas. This, to my mind, was one of the pieces of evidence that Gardner never intended to be this far down the road to canonization.

That book, published in 2000, was yet another of his many revised standard versions of his one big idea — that of multiple intelligences. He began by deciding there were roughly three areas of intelligence, more or less corresponding to the ancient criteria of truth, beauty and goodness. Then he extended this to five, then seven, then eight and a half, and so on. The only thing that remained constant about his idea was the concept that there were several (an indeterminate number of) kinds of intelligences.

The empirical fact, as anyone can tell you, is that humanity is so varied and complex that there are an infinite number of expressions of intelligence, all of which fit one criterion: the thing done is considered by other humans to be an intelligent deed. It is so circularly defined that there is actually no meaningful standard for intelligence; Arthur Clarke, inventor of the geosynchronous satellite, was moved to say, "It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value."

The only reason we continue to attempt to canonize the blessed Howard is that it is so much more convenient to categorize subjects and intelligences. The two things are related. We tend to say things like, "He's a genius at organic chemistry," and, "She's brilliant at thermal physics."

Such statements imply that the intelligence involved is highly specialised, and that perhaps the person referred to could be differently competent in some other area. But these areas themselves are artificial subdivisions of artificial divisions of knowledge. It is always amusing to get teachers, for example, to define their areas of knowledge — and then without pause, to goad them into explaining what is defined by these areas, and what they contain that is qualitatively different in terms of values and ideas related to humanity.

(For example, ask a teacher to define 'Chemistry' and then ask what Chemistry defines, and what it is about Chemistry that makes it different from any other subject in terms of values and the useful general skills. Most of them wouldn't be able to give you a definitive answer — that is, one which did not require further elaboration.)

When writing student references, the most useless thing is actually the students' grades in different subjects. These tell you nothing at all about the person as a human being. On the face of it, they should be able to tell you how industrious or intelligent the student is; actually, some reflection will tell you that they tell you nothing of the sort. Consider a person who gets a top grade for History: what does it tell you about this person, apart from the naked fact that this person was able to give answers on a specific day of a specific year that met a certain arbitrary standard?

This is why anyone who tries to sell you a multiple intelligences model should be slapped around a few times. All you need to do is ask him, "Would you consent to be evaluated in terms of this model?" Then you make him do a bunch of random meaningless things and ask him to evaluate himself by questionnaire. The result will have more in common with his self-image than with his actual level of performance when measured against the population at large.

Subjects Cambridge Does Not Want You To Take (Part II): Things Man Was Not Meant To Know

It's always fascinating to delve into the encyclopaedic tomes which form 'core' or 'accessory' rulebooks in role-playing games and RPG systems. You learn about all kinds of things that your character can develop awareness, knowledge, skill, proficiency, talent or manifestation of and in. The lists come, literally, to thousands of these things, if not myriads. Some of these things are real, and I have relatives and friends who actually have some proficiency in them.

Here are a few you have to be careful with.

1. Orchidology: This would seem obvious. It has to be the study of orchids, right? Well... it turns out that the Greek orchis means 'testicle'. If I offer you an orchidectomy, it is not an offer to prune your Vandas. An orchidologist studies orchids, and not testicles; an orchidomaniac studies testicles, and not orchids. Go figure.

2. Inductive Divination: This one's not so obvious. It's actually the practice of making many observations and then recording the consequent events following those observations. A pattern that develops is then applied in forecasting. This is the way a lot of predictive sciences (e.g. broadcast meteorology – weather services and petrochemical assessment) work.

3. Necrophilology: No, this has nothing to do with the science of necrophilia. It's the study of dead languages. Somewhat unfortunately, it can be translated in a few ways depending on how you break it up. The three Greek elements here are nekron ('corpse'), philia ('liking') and logos ('structure, language, word, words').

4. Demonoology: Yes, this one is spelt coorectly correctly. The Greek nous means 'mind', 'noology' is the study of the phenomenon of mind. Greek demos means 'the people (of a state, for example)' and hence 'demonoology' means 'the study of the collective mind of a population'. That extra 'o' in the middle, very important.

5. Demonoology: Yep, here we go again... 'oology' is the study of eggs. I'm not kidding. The Greek daimon(ion) means 'a spirit (manifesting personally and locally)'. So this particular formulation means 'a study of the physical origins of spiritual things'. The problem, of course, is distinguishing between the two; careful pronunciation required.

After five such helpings, perhaps it's good to take a break. As I dig around, I begin to realise that there are ways of saying things in Greek that cannot be said exactly in English. In fact, there are some things best said in Tibetan.

Subjects Cambridge Does Not Want You To Take (Part I): Soft Landings

What a tasty morsel for a person who is curious about the term 'areas of knowledge'!

Although this news article is almost venerable, being dated 7 Jan 2008, it is interesting to see that Cambridge University actually produced a list of 20 'A'-Level or IB subjects which it advised students not to take if they wanted to get in. The article says, quoting them: "Applying with two of these A-levels 'would not normally be considered to be acceptable.' "

What is this list of the sub-academic? Here, have a look.

Accounting
Art and Design
Business Studies
Communication Studies
Dance
Design and Technology
Drama and Theatre Studies
Film Studies
Health and Social Care
Home Economics
Information and Communication Technology
Leisure Studies
Media Studies
Music Technology
Performance Studies
Performing Arts
Photography
Physical Education
Sports Studies
Travel and Tourism

Interesting, isn't it? I wonder if any school actually tells its students about these things?

Subjects

I'm so sorry to those of you who have been reading this blog for sharp and witty writing (or whatever else you've been reading it for) and then been ambushed by a long series of autobiographical posts in which I get all sentimental and talk nonsense (as opposed to not getting sentimental and talking nonsense).

(That was a horrible sentence. I will go to some sententious, parenthetical and interminable hell, as my grammar used to say.)

My last post was about objects. This one is about subjects. I realised that after pontificating at length about education and suchlike matters, I haven't actually said much about my own ideal, perfect, beautiful education. Well, that's because I had a pretty normal education, and I might as well get it over with and disappoint you by talking about what i did for pre-university, undergraduate and postgraduate courses.

I started my pre-university education with a handful of mostly humanities 'O'-level distinctions. Somehow, things went awry and I ended up doing Chemistry, Computer Science, Economics and Mathematics as 'A'-level subjects for the first few months. Then I was summoned with a girl named Ee Lin (haha, wherever you are, if you're reading this, it was fun while it lasted) who was the only other person doing this combination and we were told to change it so that the time-table would work properly. And so I swapped the dismal science for the fundamental science. That meant I graduated in Physics instead of Economics.

Disaster followed disaster. Never a very good science student, I wound up doing Computer Science, Chemistry and Mathematics in the local university. This shrank to Pure and Applied Chemistry in my final year, followed by a research posting in organometallic chemistry. Oh yes, along the way I got an A for Human Resource Management. Haha.

A year later, I did my postgraduate diploma in secondary education. I got two Bs and an A for General Education and three As for Teaching (of Chemistry and Computer Science, and the Use of English). I got a B for the practicum (and an apology from my supervisor, believe it or not!) and ended up with a PGDE (Distinction). Another haha. Incredulous looks all around.

Then a few years of teaching in a convent followed. Odd posting that. Full post sometime else when I can bring myself to write more about those three years. Then it was time for a Master's degree (also in Education, what a fraud I am!) just for the fun of it. Further disaster, with incredulous laughter from my principal: I had Cs for 'Perspectives on Educational Developments' and 'Research and Issues in Science Education' – I don't think the examiners liked my views at all. The upside was that I had As for 'Qualitative Research', 'Research Methodology', 'Human Resource Management and Leadership', and 'Research and Issues in Language Education'. Especially for the last, I say, "Ha ha ha!"

Since that peculiar incident, I've not done very much. A few papers at conferences, a diploma in educational management, and the coursework for a PhD. Thesis incomplete. Story of my life.

The funny thing is that I've been talking about subjects, but it seems less subjective than a sort of nominally objective view of what my education is perceived as being. Well, I shan't subject you to more of this. I might say more in future, though.