dw.com
Brazil Mandates In-Person Instruction for Health and Law Programs
Brazil's Decree No. 12.456, published May 19th, mandates in-person instruction for health and law programs, requiring at least 10% in-person and 10% live online components for all distance learning, aiming to improve educational quality.
- How does this decree aim to address concerns about the quality of education and potential negative societal consequences?
- The decree addresses concerns about the proliferation of low-quality online education programs, particularly in health and legal fields, where inadequate training poses significant risks to the public. The changes aim to ensure minimum quality standards, potentially impacting the accessibility of higher education for some.
- What are the immediate consequences of Brazil's new decree on higher education, specifically regarding online and in-person programs?
- Brazil's Decree No. 12.456 mandates that medical, law, nursing, dentistry, and psychology programs must be offered exclusively in person, requiring at least 10% in-person and 10% live online instruction for all distance learning programs. This follows concerns about the quality of online education and its potential negative impacts on public health and safety.
- What are the potential long-term societal impacts of this decree, considering both positive and negative aspects, such as access and quality of education?
- The long-term impact of the decree remains to be seen, but it may lead to increased costs and reduced accessibility of higher education for some students. However, it also represents a move towards ensuring better quality training in crucial professions, potentially mitigating risks to public health and safety and improving the overall quality of professionals in various fields.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing is heavily negative towards online education, using strong emotional language and examples of unqualified professionals to paint a picture of widespread malpractice. The headline, though not explicitly provided, would likely reinforce this negative portrayal. The author's strong opinions are presented upfront, influencing the reader's perception before presenting counterarguments (which are promised but not provided in this piece).
Language Bias
The author uses strong, emotive language such as "catastrophic consequences," "grotesque," and "assaulting," which are inflammatory and not conducive to neutral reporting. These terms significantly influence the reader's perception. More neutral alternatives could include phrases such as "significant drawbacks," "problematic," and "serious concerns.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative consequences of online education without exploring potential benefits or counterarguments. While it mentions the positive aspect of inclusion, it promises a deeper discussion in a future article, leaving this analysis incomplete. The lack of diverse perspectives weakens the overall argument.
False Dichotomy
The text presents a false dichotomy between online and in-person learning, implying that one is inherently superior to the other without acknowledging the complexities and nuances of each. It doesn't consider hybrid models or the potential for high-quality online education.
Sustainable Development Goals
The decree aims to improve the quality of education by mandating in-person instruction for certain courses, particularly in health and law, addressing concerns about the inadequate preparation of professionals from fully online programs. This directly impacts the quality of education and its positive effect on society.