tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337360001060332600.post7339186928632340117..comments2023-07-25T08:26:50.096-06:00Comments on Learning at Westminster: Learning from other high cost enterprisesgaryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05362826471852969332noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337360001060332600.post-80097942256068224092009-06-08T10:43:16.841-06:002009-06-08T10:43:16.841-06:00One thing that struck me in the article was Gawand...One thing that struck me in the article was Gawande's description of the "core tenet of the Mayo clinic" (the patient comes first). Like you said, this is what we're missing in education. We tend to have vague, abstract mission statements that aren't very useful in guiding practice or decisions. <br /><br />My question is do we need a shared "core tenet" across higher ed? Or, would institution-specific missions (concrete, specific, measurable missions) be enough? <br /><br />The pessimist in me thinks that we are a long way from ever having a nationally shared understanding of what it means to be educated.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991593461200755444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337360001060332600.post-89348559813806668852009-06-07T11:25:37.279-06:002009-06-07T11:25:37.279-06:00about the educational sickness bit. it's true ...about the educational sickness bit. it's true that we don't all agree on what it looks like, and you might also say the same for educational health. What does that look like? There is a Neil Postman essay where he says that health is the absence of sickness or disease, and this is basically how doctors see it. And so he says that educational health should be the same. He says educators should aim to avoid things that make students stupid. I think this makes sense when you consider a body without sickness can only then develop and grow stronger, and so the same can be said for the mind.Derek Bitter, M.A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06089168039691711124noreply@blogger.com