Left Flank

I've dreaded this movement from an inspirational college culture I dreamed of to the online courses I have had to take. It didn't help, that additionally the vocation was a military one, and I had, as an ex-soldier, no need or desire to «succeed» at soldiering.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The sanity of this South Korean professional's and mother's epiphany makes me dizzy. I've just never read or heard such clarity in all my years in Busan.

Parents' perception of and attitudes to their children's life skills must change. If you are satisfied with the short-term gain of your child winning the competition with the neighbor's, then by all means stake everything on college entrance. But in a country where changes two or three decades hence are impossible to foretell in the global era, perhaps it is better to think of making a long-term investment.

Our success formula may have been effective in achieving Korea's ascent to the level of a medium-developed country; at the threshold of becoming an advanced nation, they no longer serve us so well. Our labor productivity per hour, at US$20.4 as of 2006, is near the bottom of the OECD or 26th among the 29 countries surveyed. It accounts for only 40 percent of the $49.90 of France and the $50.40 of the U.S., but our working hours are the longest.

If we want to become an advanced country, we should either become more creative at work, producing more added value in the same number of hours, or become more productive in fewer hours. It's high time that we learned time management skill from countries that have conquered time effectively.

It's almost uplifting, if I didn't know her opinion was unique.

Powered by ScribeFire.

I agree with much of Jin Jung-kwon's comments reported in a Chosun Daily article, aside from some of the most sensational rhetoric in the second graph.

He said it was all very well helping students get a better education in English, «but committee members seem to believe that only when students have good command of English will the country become competitive." The reality does not bear this out, he argued. "The Philippines is one of the countries where people can speak English best in Asia, and it's hard to make yourself understood in English in Japan. But compare these two countries and see which is more competitive.

"Of course, nobody can say that a good command of foreign languages isn't helpful to enhancing national competitiveness. But it's not a decisive factor either. Those who need English should study the language hard, while others should study their own majors harder than English. That is how you boost national competitiveness."

He asked how many people in Korea actually meet foreigners and work in a foreign language, and how often they do so in a year. «Students can lag behind in technologies and major courses if they concentrate only on studying English,» he warned. He said the committee's plan to introduce English «immersion» education in 2010, was pie-in-the-sky. "It would be very hard for all current school teachers to participate in such immersion education even if they were given English language training in the U.S. and did nothing else for two full years."

I especially liked the Japan/Philippines comparison!

I ran into a bit of a dizzying moment today, when discussing the recent transition committee proposals on education, students started conflating "learning English" with " learning American-style". Along with the usual canard about globalization and competitiveness, I asked the class what "learning American-style" meant, and how did it compare to "learning Korean-style".

The answer in three separate classes: "American-style" = "free talking"—literally where the teacher prompts students to talk English amongst themselves uninterrupted, with "help" in individual cases. I told them, that "free talk" did not exist in America as they understood. It seems students are so annoyed by South Korean teachers reading composed lectures, that they want as different a learning style as possible.

Students don't need English; they need jobs and better teachers. That requires economic growth and structural reform, not worthless bureaucratic mandates.

I can't agree more:

I think the very fact that English education is an issue in the election shows just how ludicrous Korea's fixation on learning English has become.

The craze to learn English in the ROK has little to do with fluency in a globalized world, and more to do with South Koreans competing against each other in a rigid market and social system.

A few years of naively plodding work in the South Korean TESOL field is followed by the desperate need for a second career. This was supposed to be the year I smoothly transitioned from my university's F-2 extra government bonus status to a new career in think tanks and non-profits. OK, it's been a dull, uneventful thud on the depressing way down on the job search these past months, but listening to these political plots to reform the TESOL business adds extra urgency to the instinct to flee.

I do recall in high school, that I had a choice between four foreign languages.

But, this is not the point: both the frustrated employee and the presidential candidates avoid facing how miserable the job market is. It's not just that the public educational system needs dire reform, but where would a South Korean work? In the handful of large corporations? There's not enough of an employment sector to support a better educated population. And, more importantly, both the education and corporate sector are not designed to support full employment. Crush the dumb and resourceless, and promote the well-connected, the unionized, and the best test-takers!

I decided to lump these three Taiwan-related posts compiled by Michael Turton together:

1. Calling Beijing's «Neo-Colonial» Africa policy what it is:

On one hand, I think any petroleum-importing state ridiculing another is just rich, since, in the absence of a sensible global energy policy, it's just a grab bag free for all. There's really no difference between Taipei and Beijing on the ends, but African states are wise to consider the pros and cons of economic cooperation and diplomatic recognition of either state. The more Taiwan, or pundits, make of Taiwan's right to compete against Beijing, the more the overall system becomes antagonistic.

On the other hand, Beijing's inflated rhetoric deserves ridicule just for its own sake.

2. Why the UN doesn't deserve respect:

Mike in Taipei's long list of grievances against the UN features Taiwan as a slighted suitor. I would only include Iraq and Iran as two UN responsibilities that are driving nails into its coffin.

But, I would argue the UN has done its job: stabilizing the post-WW2 order that FDR argued would require 60 years.

3. Education in Taiwan:

I intentionally avoid most discussions of ESL education, or education in general, in East Asia, because of strict libel laws in the ROK. Also, my blog is just a refuge for me from work. But, Michael Turton makes some points applicable to the ROK:

What is the function of all this advancement? First, it is important to stop thinking about Taiwanese education as education. Education means enhancement where Mark and I come from, but education in Taiwan is not an enhancement process, it is a weeding out process. In Taiwan we should stop thinking about education and start thinking about competition. The work is piled on at the beginning, in order to weed out the weak and the inferior and the lazy. This reaches a crescendo in the high schools: but notice the colleges - they are nowhere near as good as their counterparts in the US. How can it be that such great kids in elementary school produce such awful colleges? People forget that the educational system is a system - it starts in kindergarten and extends through the PHD programs. The US system, which does not exist to weed out kids, sensibly distributes its tasks throughout the school years.

In this vein (and, I think this observation is well-put), I would argue that it's not that sadism of this «weeding out» that is at issue, but the future of those who are abandoned. I think a globalized world puts a premium on the contributions of each and every student, and every adult later on. The issue here, then, is how does the political and economic system allow those who fail to make a living and contribute to society later. I would argue that South Korean, or Taiwanese society, fails in that respect.