Why Some People Don’t Learn Anything In College

By Daniel Miessler on March 24th, 2007: Tagged as Education | Learning

I’m constantly amazed by the number of people who seem to have learned nothing during four years at university. Until recently I’ve wondered how it was possible, but now I think I understand.

People who learn a lot in college are the people who had questions floating around in their heads before they got there. They’re curious. They have a sense of wonder about the world. As such, when answers (or provocations) are offered, they are subconsiously paired with their natural curiosity, and learning ensues.

Those who don’t benefit from school simply aren’t tuned to the world’s questions, and as such they are unable to appreciate potential answers. I finally groked this when I asked myself why I didn’t learn more in my programming classes in college.

The reason is now very clear: it wasn’t interesting to me. I thought I was going to be a sysadmin, or a “networking” guy. I didn’t really know what I was going to be, but I was damn sure it wasn’t going to be a programmer.

Because of this I went on autopilot, i.e. the mode where you say to your brain, “Temporarily absorb the minimum required to get the grade you want in this class. Nothing more.”…and that’s no way to learn.

So what’s the answer? The answer is for parents and teachers to foster within children curiosity and interest in a wide range of subjects. Don’t impart knowledge, per say, but the thirst for understanding. This way, when the opportunity to learn something presents itself it will be embraced enthusiastically instead of being ignored or mechanically processed for a short-term goal.

  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • description
  • Google
  • del.icio.us
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!

Viewing 7 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Yeah, it's always easy to blame your parents. It takes all the responsibility from yourself and makes you feel all nice and righteous.

    Just look at what you wrote - "The answer is for parents and teachers to foster within children curiosity and interest in a wide range of subjects" - how do you go about doing that?

    How about, instead, forget about the college, which belongs in the past, and think about the ways you can change the future for yourself?

    -- Arik
    • ^
    • v
    Arik,

    I don't think that Daniel was blaming the parents (or teachers). He is trying to figure out how to unlock the enormous talent in Americans that is WASTED because they lack curiosity and desire to learn. I would not put all the pressure on parents and teachers, but Daniel is exactly right. The most frustrating things that university professors see in their students is a lack of desire to learn. Far too many students want a diploma .. not knowledge. As an example ... I teach mathematics. Far too few of our students have a curiosity to learn the WHY behind an idea. They are content to (try to) memorize the mechanics of a calculation. This MAY be enough to get them through an exam .. and perhaps even a course, but they are unlikely to take anything from the course. I try to talk about the WHY's in class and am delighted when a student pursues those WHY's outside class. Professors discuss this all the time. We realize that we were not "typical" students, but we are stunned and dismayed by the lack of any apparent desire to learn.

    What is the solution? Well, there needs to be a cultural shift. Students need to value education (this is not universal across all American cultures). Parents need to value educaiton. Teachers and administrators need to value education. I believe that the GREATEST evil in the US is social promotion in school. A student gets a year older, so they progress to the next year of grade school (regardless of whether they have learned the material in their current grade). This sets them up for failure in at least two ways. They don't see any extra reward for studying and learning (everyone moves on) -- so they don't develop the understanding that hard work is IMPORTANT. And, they will find it harder and harder to learn new material as they progress through grades without learning the prior material. How can a student learn high school science if they can't read? How can a student learn high school mathematics when they don't know what (9)-(-2) or (-2)^4 or ... are?

    Students must be held accountable. Then we need to hold schools, teachers, and parents accountable.
    • ^
    • v
    Hi Carl,

    Don't get me wrong, I agree that many people (sorry to say but Americans are not alone in this) want the diploma, and have no desire to learn. I've studied with them and interviewed them. "Oh, you have a CS degree... does it pay well?" was the predominant question. Oh well.

    My comment was meant specifically to Daniel, who will do better for himself finding ways to improve himself rather than be righteous.

    I'm not sure what the solution is. So far I've seen kids who love to learn and kids who hate it. I think curiosity has something to do with it, but how do you develop that in a child? Or rather, how do you not stifle it in a child? I don't know.

    -- Arik
    • ^
    • v
    Arik, I normally find your comments challenging in that they often differ from mine greatly, and I usually approach them in a very positive light, i.e. that I should look for how I may be wrong about the point at hand, and that I should consider changing my position. In short, I value your opinions because they help me to grow as a person. Your comments in this thread, however, have utterly surprised me in both their hostility and their lack of support. First you say:

    > Yeah, it’s always easy to blame your parents. It takes all the responsibility from yourself and makes you feel all nice and righteous.

    What gave you the impression that I was *blaming* anyone in my comments? And what does righteousness have to do with it? Read my post again, please. I think a clear head will yield the same opinion of my meaning as Carl came away with. There is no blame. There is no righteousness. Let me outline the post for you in another way so that you can hopefully see how seriously you mis-characterized my comments:

    --

    1. Knowledge is appreciated when it's paired with corresponding questions that already exist in people's minds. In other words, those who are curious and always wondering how the world works are able to benefit from knowledge because they already have half of the equation.

    2. The way to improve the benefits any given individual gains from upper level education is to have them enter the system with a sense of curiosity and wonder. It's best for this to already exist before arriving, so the opportunity to impart this on young minds comes in the home and lower education institutions. Hence parents and teachers.

    3. I've witnessed the diminished power of learning when no interest exists during my time at University. The point being that if I was as interested in programming then as I am now, I would have learned a lot more. Hence the concept of growing the number of things children are interested in.

    4. Consider the role of the education of young children to be "imparting curiosity about the world" rather than the cramming of knowledge. This will foster the development of the questions that can later be paired with future learning opportunities (e.g. university).

    --

    This is NOT the same as the following piece of idiotic logic:

    1. Learning comes from interest.
    2. Interest comes from curiosity imparted as a child.
    3. Therefore if someone doesn't learn enough in college it's because their parents and teachers failed them, and it has nothing to do with them.

    ...which is apparently what you somehow extracted from my post. I find it disturbing that after reading my blog and interacting with me for such a long period of time that you would even think me capable of such a construct. But it gets worse; you then go on to say:

    > My comment was meant specifically to Daniel, who will do better for himself finding ways to improve himself rather than be righteous.

    HUH !?! Are you feeling well? I comment on curiosity being a vital component of the ability to learn (and offer an example from my own time in university) and you accuse me of blaming my parents for not learning enough in school? And of somehow being "righteous"?

    Do me the kind favor of explaining yourself to me. I think you owe me at least that much.
    • ^
    • v
    Hey Daniel,

    Sorry, I didn't mean to hurt you. Shock - yes, but not hurt. I apologize. I've conjuncted that the last part of your post was you blaming your parents for your lack of interest in college. I was reaching, and it was unfair. I apologize again.

    Let me explain what I wrote and why.

    If you read your post, it contains 4 parts:

    i. Lots of people learn nothing (in college)
    ii. People who do learn are curious
    iii. I didn't learn (programming) because it wasn't interesting
    iv. Parents and teachers must impart curiosity (vs. knowledge)

    This looks like a rant, because in i-iii you're specifying a given state of affairs, and in iv you're setting an obscure goal for the rest of the world, even excluding yourself - you could have written, for example, when I have kids I will do my damn best to make sure they are as curious as possible - but instead you wrote "parents and teachers should". That's a rant, it's inoperable.

    This concludes my analysis of your post.

    NOW

    Lets engage in an exercise to rewrite your post in a non-rant way. I would leave i and ii intact, because that is stating the existing state. iii is redundant, because it's just giving yourself as an example to what you already stated.

    To be useful, part iv should look to the only place which would make the exercise useful - the future. What are we going to do? What are you going to do to make it happen?

    Let's brainstorm here. I would start by developing my own curiosity, because children emulate and if you're openly curious about your environment, they will allow themselves to be curious about their environment. How about giving an incentive to curiosity? Like for example, I've heard that Google's interviews talk about a broad interest in non-work-related subjects. Or encouraging extra-curricular activities. Specialization is an incentive to not be curious and do what you do best, so how about education that gives you bonuses for breadth rather than depth - for example, make your core courses for your major in college worth 40% and ancillary purposefully unrelated courses 60%? How about setting aside 20% of school-time for personal interests, and bringing outside consultants to help kids achieve goals in subjects they're interested in if it's outside the capacity of the teacher? We can go on and on with the brainstorming session. Since it's brainstorming, there's no criticism.

    And then part v would be back to reality, grading some of those possible solutions and finding practical ways to implement them or at least follow their gist.

    Always look forward is my motto here.

    -- Arik
    • ^
    • v
    > in iv you’re setting an obscure goal for the rest of the world, even excluding yourself - you could have written, for example, when I have kids I will do my damn best to make sure they are as curious as possible - but instead you wrote “parents and teachers should”. That’s a rant, it’s inoperable.

    See, I just don't see it that way. To me it's pretty obvious that when I say parents and teachers I mean "WE", not "THOSE GUYS". It wasn't a rant at all; it was an observation about what I think we need to do as a society, which would most certainly include me if I were either a teacher or parent.
    • ^
    • v
    You might want to consider mentioning that. This is how I understand what you wrote. Perhaps I misunderstood the subtleties, being the foreigner and all.

    -- Arik
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

My Twitter Microblog

    Discovered Content


    About dmiessler.com

    This site is an avatar for my own self-assigned life purpose--an attempt to model the world in the most accurate way possible, and to do so without bias or fear of unpleasant truth. I desire to develop, articulate, and perpetually improve models of how things work, and then to use that understanding to increase happiness and reduce suffering. I seek those on similar paths and thrive on sharing an appreciation of the interesting and beautiful with others.



    Blog
    Study
    Writing
    Infosec
    Technology
    Politics

            

    Top Original Content


    Security & Technology

    Philosophy & Science

    Culture & Society

    Blog Archives