Hi all,
I was wondering about everyone's thoughts on academia and its role in life - public life, our lives, etc.
I will quickly lay out my thoughts:
Academia is a great institution and direly needed at this time and at all times. It has not always been a venerated and vital part of American life and today it is rapidly shrinking in importance to our lives - especially the liberal arts.
We have almost always been a practical nation. We build and invent for greater convenience and greater profit; this is a wonderful quality in the American spirit. But the liberal arts and their cultivators often fall on the wrong side of this attitude. Many people can scarce see a practical purpose to extensive reading; the proliferation of business schools on college campuses demonstrates that sentiment well enough, I think. Indeed, reading is not often pursued for its own purpose, as an end in itself. Furthermore, literature, antiquity, and history have an air of aristocracy to them which is an anathema to America. We are the nation where the father's sins (and merits) do not pass on to the son. But literary studies were an ingrained and esteemed part of the education of Continental nobles and British lords and ladies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. To many Americans, these studies represent a distastefully snobbish refinement because they are not popularist but sometimes purposefully elitist.
So we often behold the figure of the literature student, or professor, not unlike Chaucer's Clerk. Thin and pale, threadbare from spending his money on books; he is strong in mind but not in body. In university alcoves he avoids the "real world," for "those who cannot do, teach."
What is the role of Academia in America? Is it even relevant? And what is an education worth, anyway?
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 476 reads
****
That, sir, was the most eloquent jarble of nonsense this side of the Mississippi.
-dommy
http://dinodinodino.wordpress.com
I think it is instructive to understand the basic content and intent of a "Classic Liberal Education". This framework was established in medieval times to guide the western university toward standards for "education". It has, in modern times, degraded to an uncontrolled social experiment with little or no focus on its value to the individual and society at large (think progressivism and homogeneity of ideas).
The Classical Liberal Framework:
The Trivium (primary) in classical education consisted of Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric.
The Quadrivium (secondary) in classical education consisted of Arithmetic, Astronomy, Geometry and Music.
The Tertiary (specialization) in classical education consisted of apprenticeship with a master in a field.
First students learn how to learn; then they learn the current framework of existing knowledge and finally then, they begin to create original thought. This is how it used to happen and it produced remarkable minds. Somehow the model needs to be updated to leverage our new framework of knowledge to allow more people to truly create new ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts
Good topic dommy. Keep thinking about it in the context of its value to a free people and a prosperous society. There is not much that is more important for our future viability as a nation! Never Submit!!!
dommy,
Others have struggled mightily with this dilemma; to wit, what is education and what is its purpose.
I used to consider myself well-educated (hold 3 undergraduate and 1 advanced degree) until I began to realize my "education" was nothing more than extensive training. As I began to pursue some answers to this dilemma I came across a little book by a guy named Albert Jay Nock. He was a classical liberal thinker born in the 1870s and educated as a "man of letters". He became a pastor and led several congregations over the first ten years of his working life. Something life altering occurred to him and he left the church to become a journalist. His short book "The Theory of Education in the United States" is a fine dissertation resulting in some interesting conclusions:
1) All individuals are not educable
2) Egalitarianism is masked utopianism
3) Modern "education" is antithetical to an informed citizenry
In his book, Nock asserts that what passes for "education" in the modern world is but a pedagogy for producing semi-literate, docile, compliant half-wits needed for industrial age labor. He continues on to say that our "theory" is flawed and offers just a few suggestions for "fixing" it. First, educate only those truly able; train all others for skills in life; position the educated in roles worthy of their societal task of continuing the moral development of a free people.
You can find this book at:
http://www.mises.org/store/Theory-of-Education-in-the-United-States-The-...
I highly recommend it for gaining clear perspective on this critical issue for our time.
I am a teacher and I have so often posted on this topic. The total waste of money in trying to educate every idiot. No child left behind Bull S---. It is so absurd that even at the last chance hotel type school called, "The Alternative campus", the Administration's main goal is to educate these 17 and 18 years still at the ninth grade level so they can go to college?? What are they thinking and yet my taxes go on to sustain such absurdity.
Most of this student population is just buying time until they can legally drop out school. It is so ridiculous yet this is where I draw income to stay alive.
To be honest and forthright I find it at times unconscionable to be teaching. But I am caught in a time and place where my choices are limited, other options would not sustain my consumerism habits LOL
However, IN my defense I am continuously providing information about our economy, politics, why every one does not need to go to college but instead try to become skilled in a marketable trade, I even risk being written up to show them segments of films such as America Freedom to Fascism. Which by the way this past Tuesday before the break I got snitched on by the teacher next door. And, lo and behold who comes to the Door but the Fascist principal herself.
To alleviate my conscious; I am returning to a "normal" campus so to resume teaching a more purposeful subject which I have a lot more years of experience than teaching world history; at least I feel I can provide students with a more relevant training basis that can help them find a job. Health Science Technology Education an elective, it provides training in medical terminology, anatomy and physiology, and pharm. tech, basics of nursing etc.
Education in America, the future generations are being thwarted by this system. Again as I have so often stated, Why would anyone in their right mind want to place their child under the control of strangers and then what hope for the best???
Americans have for so long forgotten to own up to their responsibility of teaching their own.
TO QUOTE the reference above: Educate only those truly able; train all others for skills in life; position the educated in roles worthy of their societal task of continuing the moral development of a free people.
It use to be this way a long time ago. Students would be categorized into Academic and Vocational education. I am sure that along the way mistakes were made... and some kids were placed erroneously...
So to fix this some socialist probably came up with the idea that an equal re-distribution of education was only fair. Yep we ended up in the seventies with a lot college grads with no skills and a tremendous deficit in well trained skilled blue collar workers to work on our cars, fix heaters in the attics, A/C units the list go on and on.
I think I've made my point. lol
poulianna
The Eye of G_d is watching us
you don't know which student(s) are really listening, and will remember what you've taught. My hat
is off to you.
___________________
Freedom is an inside job
you don't know which student(s) are really listening, and will remember what you've taught. My hat
is off to you.
___________________
Freedom is an inside job
poulianna,
Here is the culprit. Dewey, Hegelian in philosophy, was a primary catalyst in changing our education system during the progressive shift of the first three decades of the 20th century. His "experiential" methods, coupled with Jungian psycho-babble became predominant during the fourties, fifties and sixties. Our educational system has never been able to recover from the "feel good", don't hurt their self-esteem horses--t prevading our schools today. Unfortunately, our universities have also succumb thanks to the sixties and now education has become, by and large, an uncontrolled social experiment. If you really want to gain some insight to the fall, read his educational philosophy "My Pedagoic Creed" at this link:
http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/e-dew-pc.htm
If you survive reading it and want to continue participating in the travesty of public education, at least you'll better understand the beast.
My guess would be that Mr. Nock and Mr. Dewey would have a lot to discuss and very little to agree upon:) For my money, I'll take Nock.
to send some of these postings and links to the Superintendent and Principal --- after I get hired at the new district- he he he :-)
I have 7 more years, I hope to survive them :-) ... getting back to teaching an elective will distance my duties as a Teacher from the ridiculous STATE imposed testing TAKS and other government controlled requirements. Where do they find these Administrators so eager to impose and execute mind controlling methods... like I have said before... They're Nazi's. lol
Thank you for the links
poulianna
The Eye of G_d is watching us
>>"In his book, Nock asserts that what passes for "education" in the modern world is but a pedagogy for producing semi-literate, docile, compliant half-wits needed for industrial age labor. He continues on to say that our "theory" is flawed and offers just a few suggestions for "fixing" it. First, educate only those truly able; train all others for skills in life; position the educated in roles worthy of their societal task of continuing the moral development of a free people."
Who is meant to educate and train people? Does Nock think that it should be done privately and voluntarily, or is he talking about public education paid for with tax dollars? Does he want this education to be mandatory? Centralized? And when the educated are being "positioned", do they have any say in where they end up, or is someone else, perhaps Nock himself or an educated person like him, supposed to decide?
I think that if there were a free market in education, if you took government regulation and subsidies out of the picture, a lot of the problems we have with the content of what is being taught would go away. The wisdom of millions of people, each one acting in his own self-interest and that of his children, and the pressure that would put on schools to shape up and stop teaching nonsense would raise standards to a much higher level. Kids who are not doing so well academically, or who have no interest in academics, could start learning trades much earlier, instead of being forced to complete a curriculum deemed essential by some bureaucrat in Washington. And people would think long and hard before committing to a liberal arts education in a university if they had to pay the entire cost themselves. If all of the bright and semi-bright kids weren't being funneled into 3 and 4 year liberal arts education programs by the public school system, employers would cease to regard a liberal arts degree as a prerequisite for employment (if indeed they do; I think that is actually a misconception that a lot of bored and unhappy students in liberal arts programs are laboring under.)
Don't get me wrong. I think that if you have the talent and the inclination for it you should definitely pursue an education in philosophy, literature, economics, political science, what have you. We do indeed need great thinkers and writers, and the marketplace would reflect this. If you are really good at those kinds of things, you can make a good living at them and enjoy yourself in the process. But I think it is a shame to see people with no talent or interest in the liberal arts wasting time parroting their teachers' opinions in the hopes of getting a degree that won't do them much good anyway. Let's take for example the famous Joe the plumber. Someone like that doesn't need a university education to make a really good living, or to have a good solid understanding of why big government is a bad idea...
After reading his little book, I came away with a sense that his was a truly great mind; and since I'm no where near his level, the following are merely my opinions. What I wouldn't give to spend a little time, eyeball to eyeball, with someone like Albert Jay Nock. Having set that qualifier in place, Nock might suggest the following.
He would first ensure the strong distinction with a clear difference between "education" and "training" is understood. Then he might reiterate Jefferson's model for the selection of the educable (merit based selection based upon performance).
Once these basic tenets are understood and agreed upon, he'd probably support a system of training (to include most natural and social sciences) institutes to ensure positive progress within our society. As for those worthy of becoming "educated", my guess is that he would suggest something akin to a Socratic method where masters teach and students seek them out through a process beginning early in life.
>> Who is meant to educate and train people?
<< Most likely masters in their respective fields. Educators would be draw from the proven educated members of society and trainers, likewise would be experts in their fields. I believe Nock would also support the relative difference in the numbers between these two groups...probably a 20/80 split between the groups...20% educated, 80% trained.
>> Does Nock think that it should be done privately and voluntarily, or is he talking about public education paid for with tax dollars?
<< Since Nock put a very high value on the truly educated members of society, he would probably advocate a system of private support to the candidates through charitable endowments, etc. I do not believe he would support public funding of education or training, for that matter.
>> Does he want this education to be mandatory? Centralized?
<< Nock would only support voluntary, decentralized, free inquiry driven by a sense of duty and loyalty to the "Great Tradition". This is one of the things that differentiates his ideas on education from the likes of Dewey. Most truly educable citizens are called to the "Life of Letters"...they cannot not pursue truth in all things. The pedagogical knuckle draggers of the modern and post-modern eras probably wouldn't even understand the concept of free inquiry and duty to the truth.
>> And when the educated are being "positioned", do they have any say in where they end up, or is someone else, perhaps Nock himself or an educated person like him, supposed to decide?
<< My guess is that the ruling intelligentsia would hold sway on where the "educated" would be best placed. Again it is important to understand that the positioning is driven by a duty-bound model as opposed to trying to fit people against their natural abilities. Coercion would have no place in the placement and should an individual prefer not to accept a role in the ruling caste, they would suffer no prejudice upon their life, liberty or property.
I really can't do justice to Nock's ideas here and while some may view his ideas as elitist, there can be no question that there exists a natural aristocracy among unfettered, free people. Now, at this point, many will dredge upon the egalitarian position that all people deserve equality in all things; and this is part of his thesis in the book. All people are not equally educable; democratic pedagogy leads to less education and finally our current system is antithetical to an informed citizenry. Our current system of education is producing successive generations of uneducated, under-skilled individuals increasingly reliant on a paternalistic, oppressive state.
I agree there are lots of dissatisfied young people being fed a banal diet of mediocrity passing as modern education...at exorbitant costs to them and their families. The payback will not be realized beyond attaining access to roles within the planned, state economy. I continue to contend that excellence in education and training are first order factors in our national viability for the future. It will perhaps be seen within 15-20 years whether we, as a people, are truly exceptional or just another floundering herd, soon to be supplanted by the next herd in line.
Nock wrote many other fine works including "Our Enemy the State", "The Freeman Book", "Jefferson" and "Memoirs of a Superfluous Man". I highly recommend his writings to anyone seeking enlightened perspectives.
"Although I do not, with some enthusiasts, believe that the human condition will ever advance to such a state of perfection as that there shall no longer be pain or vice in the world, yet I believe it susceptible of much improvement, and most of all in matters of government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by which it is to be effected." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.
Nock sounds extremely elitist. Not only that, but definitely a social Darwinist. I think implicit in that model is racism. It is also very Platonic - as in the censorship of the Republic.
The idea that everyone is not equally educable undermines our natural rights. I think it says that human beings are not inherently equal. Implicit in the training/education dichotomy is that the educated are the aristocrats and the trained the rabble. Everyone is equally educable, many people are just dragging their feet. Just as we are all free, but most people want to be sheltered by the government.
And I think that a liberal education should be available, and yes, it should be a large part of public school curricula. If philosophy, classics, literature, history can not be useful to the general population, then what of what power and use are they? Are they just tools in the hands of the elite? I would prefer not to think so. But rather that the policeman, the plumber, the teacher, the civil servant, and the senator should all be able to think at the higher level engendered by liberal arts.
-dommy
http://dinodinodino.wordpress.com
Just wanted to give you a taste of Nock's style and perhaps tweak your interest a little...if you read it, you'll certainly gain a new perspective on the "educated" mind. Have a great holiday.
"This sentiment, I say, served as a quickening spirit, not an enlightening spirit. Its ministrations moved us to the construction, by no means deliberate but quite at haphazard, of an educational theory which may be decomposed into three basic ideas or principles. The first idea was that of equality; the second, that of democracy; and the third idea was that the one great assurance of good public order and honest government lay in a literate citizenry. I need not remind you of Mr. Jefferson's passionate faith in this third idea, and his insistence upon it in season and out of season. It was in his day a speculative idea, which commanded quite wide consent among thoughtful persons, but which the subsequent test of practice has rather tended to explode. These three ideas are the fundmental ones in our theory of education today, precisely as they were in Mr. Jefferson's time. They remain unmodified, and even, as I said, unexamined; they are taken as axiomatic, and all the mechanism of our system, the whole of our pedagogical practice from the primary school to the university, is built upon them."
Albert Jay Nock in "The Theory of Education in the United States"
Nock was certainly an elitist in the sense that he understood the inherent intellectual differences in the population at large. Some are more worthy (and perhaps obliged), by virtue of their exceptional natural abilities, to lead the way forward for the rest of us. This is logically borne out by simply using the Gaussian distribution of measured mental capacity/capability. Assuming random distribution of mental capacity/capability among all homo sapiens, the normal distribution implies a mean, a mode, a median and standard deviations from the mean. It does not follow, particularly from the available evidence regarding the variance in mental capabilities among school children, everyone is "equally educable". If everyone were "equally educable", then the measures of capability for each individual would fall to the mean.
Mental capacity/capability has nothing to do with natural rights. If you delve a little deeper in to the concept of natural rights - Locke did a masterful job - you'll find no claim of equality in anything (except for maintenance of life, liberty and property). This egalitarian philosophy of equality in all things is pure bunk.
I think you have mis-interpreted the distinction between education and training, as Nock tried to explain it. He certainly admired all persons striving to uncover the mysteries of our world through studying the natural sciences. Furthermore he believed a few among the scientists and technologists were "educable" persons....though they rarely demonstrated the desire to fulfill their obligation as such. You seem to want to stay relatively PC in your logic.
Access to literature by all persons is as close as their local bookstore, library or classics sites on the internet (http://oll.libertyfund.org/). Their individual desires to partake could be called "liberty"; and should they chose not to pursue it...oh well!
At this point, I'll close by suggesting you read Nock and Spencer regarding their ideas on education versus training. You sound reasonably astute (awareness is the first step) and I think you'll probably modify some of your ideas after digesting these thinkers. An ability to think is not engendered by liberal arts...it is an organic capability and gives rise to liberal arts:) Think about it, Dommy.
>>"Mental capacity/capability has nothing to do with natural rights. If you delve a little deeper in to the concept of natural rights - Locke did a masterful job - you'll find no claim of equality in anything (except for maintenance of life, liberty and property). This egalitarian philosophy of equality in all things is pure bunk."
That's right. Equality under the law doesn't mean that everyone has to have the same abilities or even the same advantages in life. Attempts to "equalize" people that way, by re-distributing wealth, for example, always end up infringing on the individual's true natural rights to life, liberty and the ownership of the fruits of his labor.
But that will not make it so! The fact of the matter is... that we all have strength and weaknesses, like it or not some people would never in a million years, no matter how long or how much effort they put into learning the liberal arts be able to even get one iota of use from them! There are those who it would just confuse and frustrate to the ends of the earth if you tried to force liberal arts on them!
To call Nock an elitist just because he points out the obvious with logic instead of emotion is just wrong. BTW…he was not advocating it not be available to those who wanted to learn …he was saying do not mass educate people with useless information. (meaning educate to the individual needs and aptitudes not the masses)
>>"There are those who it would just confuse and frustrate to the ends of the earth if you tried to force liberal arts on them!"
I agree. There are many young people currently in Liberal Arts programs in universities who have very little interest in what they are being taught. I think that many of them would be much better off learning a trade instead of wasting 3 or 4 of their formative years reading texts they only half understand and must rely on teachers to explain to them.
Most of what you need to know in order to fully participate in, and help maintain, a free society is easy to understand. It's common sense, much of which the majority of universities actually work at subverting. For one thing, you need to understand the concept that people should earn their own wealth and should not have their own property forcibly taken away by the government or by any one else. That's 90% of it right there. Then there is the concept that people must be free to do what they want with their own lives, as long as they are not interfering with the freedom of others. They should not be prevented from associating with whoever they want, and of saying what they want to say, from owning guns to use for whatever they want (other than to aggress or coerce other people, which is covered in the above rule that you can't interfere with the freedom of others).
Beyond that, you need to know that you should be temperate, conscientious, kind to others and so on. These are things you learn from being a normal human being in a normal society, not from going to university. It's not rocket science, in other words.
As Daimona says, everyone has different talents. A person with a talent for carpentry or electrical engineering can earn a very good living at either of those trades. It would be a shame if instead that person were to end up at a desk job that he was only half good at and couldn't stand, all because he had mistakenly assumed that he would be better off pursuing a liberal arts education. That kind of thing happens all too often in the current system of one size fits all government imposed curriculum "no child left behind" education.
In reply to Dommy:
>>"Nock sounds extremely elitist. Not only that, but definitely a social Darwinist. I think implicit in that model is racism. "
Acknowledging that different people with different abilities are best served by different kinds of education isn't racist. Why would you say that it is? What does ability have to do with race?
As for elitism, isn't it true that some people are taller than others, or that some people will never be able to run as fast as others? There is a natural hierarchy with regard to size and athletic ability, right? Haven't you noticed that the same goes for different kinds intellectual ability? Spatial ability, the capacity, say, to imagine an 3 dimensional object as viewed from different angles, is unevenly distributed; some people have more of it than others. The same goes for verbal ability, the capacity to learn new words and to use them in context, ease with learning new languages. If you are not gifted verbally, and many people aren't, reading Locke is going to be a real chore. Of course anyone can improve his vocabulary, but given that you only have a limited time to accomplish what you want to accomplish in life, doesn't it make more sense to focus on what you are good at? Most people do that naturally and problems only start to occur when they are forced to focus on things they have no talent for.
Thank you for articulating that so eloquently! Happy Thanksgiving!
The whole one size fits all preK-12 federal indoctrination system is probably the worst possible thing for our children. Too many childern wind up believing what they are told by indoctrination in public schools. This leads to lots of frustration and loss of motivation toward what they know they can become.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Happy Thanksgiving to you too :-)
I'm positioned properly --- so that I may continue the moral development of free people --- I'm in favor of this system
I recently reread Arthur C. Clarke's A Fall of Moondust. I probably first read it around 40 years ago. There is a place in the story where he talks about Plato's Allegory of the Cave and gives an example in relation to technology. "Good" science fiction often contains information about other subjects like history, psychology, astronomy and philosophy. I have found it more interesting than liberal arts courses. Sci-Fi is very future oriented and too much liberal arts seems focused on the past.
{{ I think literature/philosophy/liberal arts opens up a person to spacious thinking. }}
If you want spacious thinking from kids I would say find and give "good" sci-fi books to grade school kids. I started reading it at 9. A lot of kids seem to have their curiosities killed in grade school.
Another problem is that science fiction seems to be suffering from what I call the "Star Wars Effect". The producers of Star Wars said it WAS NOT SCIENCE FICTION. They said it was SPACE FANTASY. But how many 10 year olds were paying attention to that in 1977? So today most people regard it as sci-fi. And, HORROR of HORRORS, a Harry Potter novel was given a Hugo Award in 2001. The Hugo was usually given to science fiction stories so sci-fi ain't what it used to be. It might best to point kids at books from before 1980 or at least be more selective with the post-1980 stuff.
But the technology has come to our rescue.
Electronic Sci-Fi
With today's technology it is so ridiculous for kids to be carrying these HUGE BACKPACKS I see them with. I must have 200 books on my Archos PMA400.
psik
PS - Since Star Wars I think some of the Liberal Arts Academia has invaded sci-fi for the money. They then presume to say what "good" SF is. Science fiction without some REAL science. JEEZ!
I agree with AAR about the liberal arts. From your description of academia, it seems you are referring to what some call the liberal arts (as opposed to servile arts whose function is to equip people for careers). I find the modern [mis?]conception of the liberal arts in America interesting-namely that it's good for you to get exposed to a few different areas of study to be 'well rounded.' A class or two in philosophy, a bare minimum in math and science, throw in some language, pick your career major and you're set for life with a career and enough knowledge in different areas so you can strike up a conversation with people at your business conferences or something. The conception I've been taught of it is more based on what people believe to be the purpose Plato's school of philosophy.
At this school, they had, I believe a trivium-rhetoric, logic, and grammar and a quadrivium of algebra, applied algebra (music), geometry and applied geometry (astronomy). And the purpose of this education was basically inquiry so that one would want to know more things and would have the ability to think through these problems which the analytical skills of these sciences taught. I think that's what AAR was going for by saying that a liberal arts education "enables students to effectively deal with life's perplexities."
And your comment, dommy, about the level of respect that it gets in an American culture gets me wondering too, since there does seem to be a bit of a divide between the elites and the 'commoners' in both academia and I guess in politics too. I wonder, though, how much effect it had on us that most of the founders were very well-educated. I shouldn't say I know too much about all of them, but from the bio I read on John Adams, I get the idea that all the teenagers coming out of Harvard had an immense respect for classical literature, though there is that element of 'we don't need that junk cuz we're a new country and we're better than you' attitude.
$.02
Classical literature was the standard for liberal arts education basically until World War II - the GI Bill popularized education and made it impossible to foist Greek and Latin on the hordes of students. And many Founding Fathers were well-versed in classics. But there doesn't seem to be as serious an engagement with the classics in early American Republic history as much as there is with English and French philosophers. Liberal arts nonetheless.
But as has been said, I agree with AAR in the sense that I think literature/philosophy/liberal arts opens up a person to spacious thinking. But I think that everyone should have such an education - from ditch diggers to policemen, to elected officials.
However, Plato was rabidly aristocratic and in favor of tyranny - both of which had different meanings than their current English usage - and he would exclude Homer from his Republic; tragedy, an immensely important Greek literary form, also largely gets panned from his Utopia.
-dommy
http://dinodinodino.wordpress.com
is the best form of education. It allows one to consider one's relation to history and the intellectual, emotional, and philosophical problems that have faced mankind since its inception.
It prepares students for careers in the sense that it enables students to effectively deal with life's perplexities. This will assist anyone in whatever career they choose.
But its career benefits are indirect and probably manifest themselves slower than, say- studying marketing. If you major in marketing and do your marketing internship chances are you may be hired by a marketing company immediately upon graduation.
However, when you're sweating away in your cubicle, feeling like a fly caught in a web, wondering what the purpose of all this is, you may wish you had studied the liberal arts.
Likewise, when you are taking orders at the local dining establishment, and remembering to tip out the busboy at the end of the night -- you may wish you had studied marketing, or computer science, engineering, etc.