To Standardize or Not To Standardize

In the readings for class today on The Education of Statesmen in Cicero's De Republica by J. Jackson Barlow and The Faulty Foundation of American Colleges by Todd Rose and Ogi Ogas, I found an underlying theme of whether or not standardization is ideal or not. Barlow's piece demonstrates this theme in its exploration of what constitutes the best regime, that is, one that is "the most nearly changeless" and, most especially, in its exploration of true law, that is, law that is "of universal application, unchanging and everlasting". In both of these concepts, standardization, then, is the sameness of something over time. Rose and Ogas' piece's main discussion is on standardization, and they argue that individualized education is superior to assembly line, Taylorist education.

Rose and Ogas' claim is mainly supported by the metaphor used throughout the article on the diversely "jagged" pilots and the attempt to fit these pilots into standardized cockpits. They referenced the real life metaphor multiple times as evidence that their claim is valid. They also touched upon theories and beliefs of famous individualists that were mostly not accepted because the idealists didn't have a practical science or efficient method to apply the theories.

I found it interesting that both pieces provide information on arguments made by critics and then proceeds to debunk, or at least add some food for thought on, the critics' argument. Rose and Ogas, specifically, anticipated critics' arguments by using the cockpit metaphor to address the possibility of

"the idea of redesigning higher education around the principles of individuality might seem hopelessly quixotic. That's how aircraft manufacturers reacted when the Air Force abruptly commanded them to redesign cockpits. They insisted it would be prohibitively expensive. A few suggested that the presumed complexity of an individualized cockpit would impair pilot performance, not improve it. But then, to everyone's surprise, the engineers came up with solutions that were both cheap and easy."

In essence, the above passage is Rose and Ogas offering a possible problem that critics might bring up, that is, that the solution to higher education might be too expensive, complex, or even detrimental to performance, and negating it, by detailing how those critics/skeptics ended up coming up with cheap and easy solutions.

When it comes down to it, I agree with Rose and Ogas' claim that individualized education is superior to standardized education because we are all unique beings and, thus, we should have an education tailored to our unique and individual needs, aptitudes, and shortcomings. I also believe that we should not be penalized for these certain needs, aptitudes, and shortcomings, that we are born with and, thus, have no control over, if they do not conform to the standardized educational system. I found the key principles for individualistic education interesting and especially true and the methodology of "analyze, then aggregate" and "tests of competency" to be helpfully practical.