As a person who has studied in three universities, two traditional and one unconventional, I have learned to appreciate my unconventional school, Minerva University, and its education.
My classmate said, “I think Minerva is similar to traditional universities that I learn nothing useful.” It’s not the case for me. They are far from comparable.
Take learning frameworks as a comparison. At NTU, I need to apply to a popular consulting class and prestigious club with a really low acceptance rate. The education was cheap but tiring. Most of my time wasn’t learning but acquiring the learning resources. In addition, the practice was far from enough unless getting into an intense club such as BizPro. From my experience in the BCG class, I only learned the high-level framework, such as fallacies, but it was only a three-hour lecture a week. Those ideas floated around me within three hours but vanished the next day. In addition, I was expected to apply the framework to the entangled, complex real-world problems that I had never encountered before. I saw our team spending most of our time confused and discussing irrelevant topics because none knew what was going on. The only significant experience was a feedback session with BCG consultants. But still, I only saw a slight connection between the class framework and their feedback, not to mention that the learning environment isn’t collaborative but uncomfortably competitive.
The problem lies in scaffolding and consistent application. BCG consultants might be able to internalize all the frameworks due to years of experience, but this didn’t apply to me as a newbie. The BCG teacher said that one fallacy was, “Chicken is an animal with two legs. And if you think a cat is an animal, it has two legs as well. This is funny and ridiculous.” Yes, it’s ridiculous, but it meant nothing to me when facing my client’s complex problem. The far transfer from the chicken to the clients’ fallacies was way too far.
A framework is a mental model that manipulates information. The power of the framework is that a framework can not only organize but re-create the relationships of information so that new questions can be asked and new insights can be discovered. To apply a framework, instead of asking “How to fit the information into a framework?” I will ask “How might we creatively think of new relationships for the information we have?” We need to understand its purpose and practice it consistently so that connections for new information can be easily formed. Scaffolding is a user manual that teaches us a basic understanding and the purpose of a framework. Consistent practice wires neurons together, so they fire together when information draws parallel even analogically.
In Minerva’s first year, my profs only scaffold one concept for each 1.5 hr class, and we need to consistently apply that concept as a framework for the next four years. We are graded on all those conceptual frameworks in classes and assignments. Hence, it’s impossible to be unintentional. Profs don’t lecture the concept in class but practice and improve the application with us. For instance, in logic class, when most online courses teach truth tables (if not p, then q), we actively make funny sentences. We need to translate symbolic sentences into our own arguments and vice versa, and prof would call on different students to discuss if it is a valid application. Freedom creates much fun, strong memory, and internalization. The discussion encourages critical thinking and identifying bad knowledge transfer. Besides, we have rubrics and written feedback for the framework we apply. For me, the professional feedback and guidelines are irreplaceable because it corrects me during the far transfer process. If I read books about frameworks and use them myself, I never know if I’m applying them correctly and improving.
Though some criticism says it limits the learning of other new frameworks, I think I will forget the framework without this rigid system sooner or later. Frameworks are made to be applied, not merely inspired. I value the boring while consistent practice. Framework application needs to be a habit, and that’s why Minerva calls it a habit of mind.
Even though I had finished my third year already, I still felt I was sucked at applying the habits of mind. Why? Because years of practice peeled off the excitement when I first encountered the framework and made me realize how difficult and intentional I needed to recall and review to apply them well. It’s a process of,
“Wow, I learned so much!
Wait? Did I?
Ah, I see now.
Oh, no, I don’t think I ever learned it…”
All in all, the environment for consistent practice on a wide time scale and direct feedback for mastering the framework are why I appreciate Minerva so much more.