I got a chunk of "old-school" curriculum in my high school. Greeks, Romans, Shakespeare, European history and the like. We were required to learn a language and demonstrate competency in it in order to graduate. I firmly believe that such an education is timeless in the way it prepares young minds for adulthood.
That changed when I got to college. Euro-centric anything was out (dead white males, you know?). The language requirement was a breeze. Now, I know that the traditional curriculum at my high school was unusual. So it's a shame that colleges and universities moved away from that kind of curriculum, denying most students that kind of education.
Writer Victor Davis Hanson laments this decline in the article The New Learning That Failed. He writes:
The triumph of the therapeutic and the eclipse of the tragic ensured that students’ expectations soared even as their intellectual and mental abilities to handle inevitable setbacks eroded.The article is a bit esoteric and the tone seems a little, well, defeated. After twenty years of this silliness, I get the impression that Hanson isn't certain whether a classical or more traditional approach to learning can rise from the ashes of the "new" learning.
The result was a weird marriage in both today’s student and professor of arrogance and ignorance — assurance that bad things either won’t happen or can be easily addressed by identifying the right -ism or -ology, but utter confusion when that never seems quite to be the case.
15 comments:
Nice to see that everyone agrees that an old-fashioned education is important.
Can't think of anything more important. In my opinion, it along with health care for all, ought to be the hallmark of every Presidential Administration. Its high time we divested our interests internationally and really tried to become a civilization of class and substance.
I always cringe when I hear about schools needing to dump money into computers and related curricula.
It's not that I think computer skills are 100% irrelevant, but when I see the quality of some undergraduate work, I wonder if resources might better be turned to other, more traditional areas.
If so many undergrads are in need of remedial English, remedial math and the like, maybe our attention should be focused there.
It's a heckuva lot cheaper than buying PC's, too.
Agreed. What about teachers? In my opinion teachers are no less valuable to a society than doctors, scientists and engineers. They should be compensated accordingly.
To Jay who posted the article,
I thank you for this. As you said, it's not a super easy read, but I did enjoy it and it even made me look up some words! Hanson has a great vocabulary and I found a lot of other interesting writings by him too. Thanks!
Now I have bad news for the Poster Jay and for the Borg, who both gave their wholehearted approval to the article.
My friends, I have a surprise for you. And it's not a surprise in the birthday party way. It's an "out of control truck hurdling toward you" kind of surprise.
The article says that liberalism has damaged the University and its students. It says that liberals have degenerated into unthinking drones. It says that classical education of the past was discarded by liberals and that the students are left with no ability to reason or recognize good from bad.
It says exactly the same things I have been saying that you almost peed yourself over. Or maybe not almost.
And now you claim to agree with it, which implies to normal folks, that you probably read it.
Busted.
Is the ingrained habit of dishonesty in liberals so pervasive that it springs naturally to the pen even when the lib has nothing to gain by the deception?
My God. It's worse than I thought.
Please libs. Do read Mr. Hanson. Try to return to being normal Americans. Some of us will be glad to help.
Trenton,
I disagree with Hanson completely on politics. But he is somewhat of a scholar and at least deserves a read. Unlike D'Souza, who you apparently have a great affinity for. He's nothing more than a vulgar propagandist, maybe that's why you're so factually challenged?
You can't discern scholarship from propaganda. But I'm here to help you improve yourself.
It says exactly the same things I have been saying that you almost peed yourself over.
Exactly the same? Hardly. See, Hanson's article is well-reasoned. He has beliefs, which he goes on to defend, and defend well in my opinion.
Bjorn, yes, teachers are a part of the equation, but I think we're are fighting a culture here.
It's taken as a given that computer training is necessary in our schools. Changing that attitude is step one.
Understand that I'm not saying computer skills are irrelevant. But with limited time and resources, aren't skills like being able to communicate in print, reading comprehension, the ability to formulate an argument and understand basic science more important?
We've seen all too well what happens when we don't arm people with these skills.
Oh my. I can feel the squirming from here. How embarrassing.
I think I understand your explanations though - your initial approval of the article was either because:
1. You disagreed totally with its conclusions but didn't want to hurt the authors feelings so you gave it a glowing review
or
2. You totally agree with the author as long as he didn't say exactly what he says in the article.
Come on guys. Man up. Admit that you didn't read the article (and probably still haven't), yet - for some reason yet to be discovered - felt the desire to pretend you did.
I have written a few more insights here, but erased them. I suspect it's hard enough to own up to a Ward Churchill moment such as this.
I'll be kind.
Let's not speak of it again.
Time to move on.
Now, I have a question about the study of classical civilizations.
Adherents to which ideology are more likely to describe Western (and or American) Civilization as lacking "class and substance".
a: terrorists
b: liberals
c: Ward Churchill
You're right, of course, T. I found an article -- didn't read it -- but some how felt the need to summarize it (how did I do that?!) and post it on the blog with approval. Even though I didn't read it and, apparently, am fearful of what it contains.
It's a shame that it's come to this, but I guess it's time to remember the old internet adage "Don't feed the trolls."
Your M.O. is very clear now. You know very little, want to know less, and cannot defend what you claim are your positions.
Let me repeat that. You can not defend what you claim are your positions.
I don't know why that is, but what I do know is that I can no longer respond to you, giving chance after chance to demonstrate that you know how to behave like a mature adult.
You made the odd (and funny) leap that I am one of your hated "libs" because I mentioned that I don't like the FISA compromise bill.
I note that you didn't explain why this is. We'll pause here while you google it on your favorite website so you can cut-and-paste a reply and then ignore any response to it.
I don't like the compromise bill because I believe it immunizes lawbreakers and removes judicial oversight of Due Process. I like checks and balances. I like Due Process. Apparently you do not.
I say "apparently," because no one knows what you think. So far, it seems that you don't think at all.
Can you tell me why punishing lawbreakers and believing in checks-and-balances are a liberal tenet?
Oh, why bother? I need to remember: Do Not Feed The Trolls.
You don't want to discuss and you don't want to know and I, for one, don't want to help you maintain your illusion that you're engaged in some intellectual process. You aren't.
See ya.
I think Western (and or American) Civilization lacks "class and substance". What does that make me?
Doug, I believe that makes you Winston Churchill. Don't ask why.
Jay is learning.
When there is no troll food, the trolls wither and die.
Maybe it makes you Ward Cleaver, I dunno?
Jay,
Now hold on one minute buckeroo.
Are you saying that you, the jay who I have been having a nice little discussion with, and the Jay who posted the article on the blog are one and the same Jay?
If so, I do owe you an apology. Obviously the Jay who posted the article and wrote the review that piqued my own interest must have read it. I had absolutely no idea that the you were that Jay until I read you own words, "summarize it (how did I do that?!) and post it on the blog." The idea that you were the original poster floored me and negated my supposition that you hadn't read it. Good lord, man, why didn't you point that out earlier?
I suppose you were certain that everyone would know that one Jay was also the other jay. I didn't to my embarrassment.
Sir, my humble apologies for not realizing. You may have a sharp tongue and a thin skin and suffer from occasional confusion, but you are not a liar.
Also I now understand that you really do like Hanson. Me too. He has an important message about what has happened to so many of our institutions.
Now If I can just enlist your efforts in helping our fellow Americans who have surrendered themselves to the Siren call of liberalism....
Post a Comment