Education. Something extremely valuable, yet so often ignored. In many cultures education has indeed stalled, or even become worse than before. In some, education has prospered, become something respected and even demanded. But for education to prosper, it needs more than good teachers, good schools and the chance to attend them. For education to prosper, you need to spark interest in it.
Back in the old days you had A-team, MacGyver on the telly. They showed what can be done when time is of the essence, when resources are plentyful, and when you had a dire need for something unusual. If you wanted to know more about the reactions and principles behind the constructions, you could watch Bill Nye the Science Guy. On a higher level you had Feynman's lectures. The telly was a world of wonder for anyone who was curious about the world and how it works. I mean, who didn't like the machines and fixes made of random conveniently placed objects? They explained everything from chemical buffer systems to electrical fuses, and you had a good time watching them do it.
Now that's all in the past. Just like video killed the radio star, internet has taken a mallet to educational TV. Sure, you have your Brainiac with its scientific inaccuracy (flat out lies), Mythbusters with little to no explanations and Burn Notice where everything is solved by duct tape and guns. Lots of guns. But quite frankly, these shows lack the jerry-rigging that made the older shows so fun to watch. To see what can be done with random objects you have lying around, to see the world of possibilities around you, expanded by having scrap. That feeling was spectacular. Those days are gone.
But are they?
For the past few years there has been a TV show airing in Estonia that pits teenagers against each other in a battle of wits. The participants must show their intelligence as parts of teams and as individuals. In each episode the young stars have to solve three problems of increasing difficulty, often building everyday devices using unusual materials and methods. One by one the weakest performers are eliminated until only the best remains and wins a large scholarship and some additional prizes.
But the main point of it is not competition, it is about innovative problem solving. It is about inspiring younger people to start exploring and experimenting, to start learning. It is about creating groovy role models out of actual science-curious teenagers for kids to follow. Making 'smart' considered 'cool'. It is about creating the spark of interest in science and education. And it is working - even as a 'edutainment' show, it has a stable viewership of nearly 10% of the country's total population.
It is a direction the other countries should follow. Education should be valued, it should be propagated. But it should also be done in a way suitable for children - not in commands, but in opportunities. Force a kid to learn chemistry and he might do it, have enormous difficulties with it and forget it the week after. It does not mean he is an addlepate, it means he wasn't given the chance to be curious. Show him what chemistry can do for him, something practical, something he can see, do, and consequently understand. And he will learn more than you could ever force him to. I'm not saying you should deprive the kid of things he has not shown interest in, I'm saying give him a chance to be curious. And you'll be amazed at the results.
