Sorry, Jay, but I don't agree. Education is about learning how to identify what's important and what's bulls**t, about learning to think for yourself and to think critically, about learning how circumstances may be analogous and how they may differ, about learning how to apply what's available to what's new and to innovate and create when what's available isn't sufficient to meet what's new. Don't get me wrong: some teachers wouldn't know the Socratic method if it hit them in the face, and the vagueness and haze and vapidity that wafts through their classes are cover for their own intellectual inabilities. But if you want pablum, stay in a nursery.

Write about what you know Jay. This is a self-evidently silly column for anyone familiar with the decades of debate on the issue. The fact that Detterman's comment is news to you, by itself, disqualifies you from the discussion. Did you lose a bet and have to write something demonstrably false with a straight face?

-- Thanks for the comment, Pushkin. "You don't know what you're talking about. I'm the expert here." End of discussion. I think Detterman would approve! jh

AGREED!!

While I do agree that students need straightforward information, they also need to learn how to reason through the nascent and nebulous concepts. Otherwise, they will have the tools/info to deal with "known" issues, but new ones. In law, if there is no precedent for a particular issue (which happens all the time) attorneys must develop their own arguments through analogy and logic. Detterman's argument is equivalent to saying that anyone can be a good football player as long as they know the rules of the game. There is no substitute for the physical or intellectual acuity that comes with the active pursuit of excellence.

Here's why you're dead wrong.

The purpose of school isn't to pour facts into the heads of students: you can get facts easily on the net.

The purpose of school is to teach students to think, to use logic, to separate truth from falsehood, and logic from fallacy.

Otherwise we will be Tea Party Nation.

The Socratic method is not just about questions and answers, but rather a position that one adopts towards learning. Embracing the notion that "the only thing I know for certain is that I'm not certain about anything" creates an attitude of searching, curiosity, and wonderment - all qualities that are essential to a philosophic and fruitful life.

To be sure - unending questions for the sake of asking questions isn't fruitful for teacher or pupil. However, even when you stumble upon an answer, one should remain curious, lest we get confident in what we "think" we know.

The problem with almost all education today is that no one thinks. The Socratic Method helps one to THINK. Most MBA programs are trades programs, so it's no wonder that its students don't really have an appreciation for thinking, as you readily admit. Perhaps this is a reason that the economy is in such a mess. Think about THAT.

So I was right.

It's funny Michelle Davis likens the "Tea Party Nation" to unthinking, unquestioning droids. When in reality, those everyday, normal folks who identify with the Tea Party movement are truly the ones who question the status quo, can think critically about the problems our nation is facing, and have the fortitude and perserverence to make a difference. By the way, I believe teaching requires both transfer of information from an authority as well as the questioning and reasoning process. Too much of either is neither useful nor effecient.

Just wanted to clear things up: That was "Henry Plantagenet" that posted the comment about "Tea Party Nation" not me.

So does it change anybody's opinion on this question to know that the strongest bastions of Socratic pedagogical technique in America are our law schools? If you think that all lawyers are trained "to think, to use logic, to separate truth from falsehood, and logic from fallacy", then you should be a strong supporter of the Socratic method. If not...

Mea culpa. Apologies to Michelle. The formatting on this blog's comments has room for considerable improvement.

Jay,

I have to disagree with you and Professor Detterman. It is time to stop spoon feeding students the answers and to start getting them to think how to solve problems independently. Detterman's method is the same as is used in the public schools. Most public schools now teach to the assessment tests so that their schools and school systems will look good and the government largesse will follow.

Part of the issue depends on the background of the students. I think teachers many times try to get a discussion going on which students have no background and as stated a class session is wasted.
For example, ask a intro to economics class whether the minimum wage should be raised and you'll get an active discussion. Unfortunately, it will not be informed by evidence and any type of framework where the discussants understand each other.
But I guess that's what happens in the political arena as well.

I strongly agree with Mr Hancock, and as a teacher I realize it teaching Chemistry. The time to take the students by the inferential method to conclusions about Chemical laws across experiments about anyting is definitely too long. This is true not just for Chemistry, but for any other subject, History of Art included. If you use all the time for that the risk is that you give so little information about any discipline thet the students have no overall view of it. In Italy we do not use it , actually. That' s why our "Liceo Classico " is still one of the most overrated school in the world. This obviously does not mean that you have to skip examples, experiments and never use inferential method, but just to explain from time to time how it works. How would it be possible to explain ALL the path of the Chemistry's Theories have gone before arriving to the actual laws? The same is for Literature, Phylosophy and Languages.