Some today advocate the teaching of food science and preparation in schools as a key 21st century skill. In my opinion, though the expense is a potential obstacle, such a proposal is justifiable.
Opponents of this proposed curriculum shift argue that it would only benefit more affluent school systems. The majority of schools, particularly those in inner cities and remote rural regions, struggle already to maintain quality facilities and employ experienced, dedicated teachers. The idea of building a kitchen for student-use and keeping it stocked with ingredients as well as the sophisticated equipment required to teach about and practice molecular gastronomy is simply unrealistic. Critics justly point out that such money would be better spent maintaining more essential infrastructure such as the fields, classrooms, and school buildings themselves.
Nonetheless, assuming government funding is available, this would be an ideal method of combining a practical skill with scientific theory. One of the most common complaints among students after graduation is that the vast majority of their studies were impractical and did not prepare them for adulthood. Learning to cook on its own would go a long way towards answering this criticism. However, the true gains would come from the linking of theory and practice. Many scientific theories are abstract and difficult to both understand and retain later in life. The practical application in cooking would not only help students grasp the concepts initially but repeated review from making meals in one’s daily life would likely ensure permanent understanding.
In conclusion, food science may seem trivial and its application might pose financial hurdles but it is worth enacting in order to educate students well. Where possible, governments should allocate the necessary funding.
Some
today
advocate the teaching of food science and preparation in
schools
as a key 21st century
skill
. In my opinion, though the expense is a potential obstacle, such a proposal is justifiable.
Opponents of this proposed curriculum shift argue that it would
only
benefit more affluent
school
systems. The majority of
schools
,
particularly
those in inner cities and remote rural regions, struggle already to maintain quality facilities and employ experienced, dedicated teachers. The
idea
of building a kitchen for student-
use
and keeping it stocked with ingredients
as well
as the sophisticated equipment required to teach about and practice molecular gastronomy is
simply
unrealistic. Critics
justly
point out that such money would be better spent maintaining more essential infrastructure such as the fields, classrooms, and
school
buildings themselves.
Nonetheless, assuming
government
funding is available, this would be an ideal method of combining a practical
skill
with scientific theory. One of the most common complaints among students after graduation is that the vast majority of their studies were impractical and did not prepare them for adulthood. Learning to cook on its
own
would go a long way towards answering this criticism.
However
, the true gains would
come
from the linking of theory and practice.
Many
scientific theories are abstract and difficult to both understand and retain later in life. The practical application in cooking would not
only
help
students grasp the concepts
initially
but
repeated review from making meals in one’s daily life would likely ensure permanent understanding.
In conclusion
, food science may seem trivial and its application might pose financial hurdles
but
it is worth enacting in order to educate students well. Where possible,
governments
should allocate the necessary funding.