It's kind of like saying you been to a doctors office so you are now qualified to be a doctor.
It makes you wonder, though, if the education programs (the programs that educate educators) are so far removed from reality that they can't see the forest for the trees. In this particular example (the facts and correct answers thing), everyone who has been through education programs agrees with the statement (to some degree) and everyone else seems to disagree. I've discussed this with everyone I work with -- from MBAs and CPAs to blue-collar forklift drivers -- and all of them find the notion simply absurd. Could it be that this current round of educational theory has crossed the line out of the realm of common sense? Obviously, educational ideas twenty years ago were different from what they are today, and some ideas (the stuff JP is learning) are different still.
If educational theory is so unstable, then why are its proponents so loyally devoted?So anyway, here's what my professor said yesterday -- which was a surprisingly pleasant happy-medium (not as liberal as Kije, Teikel, or 42's ideas; not as bizarre as JP's; and not as conservative as mine): Basically, she said that facts are essential, and need to be learned, but they are the end-all of the education system. The end-all, is knowing how to utilize those facts. She gave two examples:
1) You're in an high-level trigonometry class, and you're solving a huge problem. If you do everything right--showing a knowledge of the overall concept--but screw up and miss a minus sign, then the answer would be wrong. Still, the error was tiny, and not related to your knowledge of either arithmatic or trigonometry. It was just a human error. In that situation, you should not be horribly penalized for not reaching the 'correct answer'.
2) You're studying international relations, and debating whether the United States should have entered a war. Ultimately, the debate is the most important thing -- it's the most relevant part of the exercise, and school should be teaching you how to think through these types of things. But you can't think it through if you don't know the historical precedents of American foreign policy: the Monroe Doctrine; Woodrow Wilson's 14 points; etc. Yes, the discussion is the most important part, but it can't be responsibly discussed without first knowing the facts.
So, like SE mentioned, the problem comes in the word 'emphasize'. Yes, facts and correct answers should be learned, but only to allow you apply that knowledge in creative and critical-thinking ways.
Admittedly, this is what Kije said in his first post. It was only once we began discussing it more in depth that the more liberal ideas emerged from the group.