« Weekly Report | Main | Another Week ... »
January 21, 2008
Practical Education
I'm waking up the brain, here. Are you ready for something a little different? After all, House and LOST haven't started up again yet.
I have joined a mailing list on which we are discussing Richard Gamble's The Great Tradition: Classic Readings On What It Means To Be An Educated Human Being. The 650-plus page book is simply selections about education from great authors. We are going to read a selection a week, which means it will take more than a year to get through the book.
Grab your brain and some coffee.
This week's reading was from Isocrates, a sophist and a contemporary of Plato. This is the third week of readings. Last week I learned from Xenophon that Socrates did not altogether approve of subjects such as geometry and astronomy. He classified these subjects as pure theory, and as such not useful. Hey thought such studies were all right to a point, but also that they could occupy an entire lifetime, to the exclusion of useful studies. It makes sense, in retrospect, but I never realized just how utilitarian Socrates thought education should be. This is interesting, because we classical homeschoolers are often derided for teaching our kids all kinds of "useless information." Latin is "useless." So is ancient Greek. So is grammar, the progymnasmata, and reading Plato. It's all useless, right? None of it will help our kids to get jobs.
We argue that although Latin has no immediate practical application, it trains the mind. It's good mental exercise. Studying the ancients puts us in touch with the foundations of our society. The ancient forms trained the greatest minds from antiquity onwards, so they must be good for our kids, too. We argue that such learning is formative, and will allow our kids to turn their minds toward anything.
Would Socrates accuse us of being impractical? Or would he approve as long as such study doesn't exclude useful learning?
On the other hand in order to get the appropriate high school credits for college, and the appropriate credits for a degree, students are expected to learn all kinds of "useless" things. Isocrates' definition of "useless" is this: "none of these disciplines has any useful application either to private or to public affairs; nay, they are not even remembered for any length of time after they are learned because they do not attend us through life nor do they lend aid in what we do, but are wholly divorced from our necessities" (from the Antidosis). Certainly, most of us would put algebra, physics, geometry, chemistry, world history and the like into that category. We don't remember anything, but we had to take the class to get the degree.
Would Socrates accuse the modern school system of being impractical? Are any of us being practical?
Isocrates was more sympathetic to the theoretical disciplines than Socrates was:
For I believe that the teachers who are skilled in disputation and those who are occupied with astronomy and geometry and studies of that sort do not injure but, on the contrary, benefit their pupils, not so much as they profess, but more than others give them credit for. ... For while we are occupied with the subtlety and exactness of astronomy and geometry and are forced to apply our minds to difficult problems, and are, in addition, being habituated to speak and apply ourselves to what is said and shown to us, and not to let our wits go wool-gathering, we gain the power, after being exercised and sharpened on these disciplines, of grasping and learning more easily and more quickly those subject which are of more importance and of greater value.- from the Antidosis
Maybe in Isocrates we have a rationalization for both the "useless" learning of a classical education in a modern world, and for the teaching of "useless" subjects such as algebra, high school calculus, physics, advanced grammar, poetry ... etc. Even if they are not of immediate use, even if we forget everything we learned, the work still sharpened our brains. It made us better thinkers.
Well, that's the theory.
The general curriculum was both much simpler and much more difficult back in ancient Athens:
Whom, then do I call educated ...? First, those who manage well the circumstances which they encounter day by day, and who possess a judgement which is accurate in meeting occasions as they arise and rarely misses the expedient course of action; next those who are decent and honourable in their intercourse with all with whom they associate, tolerating easily and good-naturedly what is unpleasant or offensive in others and being themselves as agreeable and reasonable to their associates as it is possible to be; furthermore, those who hold their pleasures always under control and are not unduly overcome by their misfortunes, bearing up under them bravely and in a manner worthy of our common nature; finally, and most important of all, those who are not spoiled by successes and do not desert their true selves and become arrogant, but hold their ground steadfastly as intelligent men, not rejoicing in the good things which have come to them through chance rather than in those which through their own nature and intelligence are theirs from their birth. Those who have a character which is in accord, not with one of these things, but with all of them - these, I contend, are wise and complete men ....- from the Panathenaicus
Whew. Is that all?
So. Character is everything. And what was the best means to form that character? Learning the art of political discourse, of course, guided by teachers who were themselves of excellent character and accomplished in discourse.
That's a pretty sobering list. Most of us, when we think about educating our kids, think of lists of subjects and books. We plan to fill them with knowledge, or put them into circumstances in which they can discover knowledge for themselves. It's much, much easier to teach subjects, isn't it? It's much harder to think that my real goal is to try to turn out Isocrates' educated man - and be a model for that man in the process. Ouch. But even though we all want our kids to have those attributes, the teaching of them tends to take a back seat to subjects. And modeling them? Oof. Yeah. After the next TV show, maybe?
And this list, this character training, was the education that was practical; the character formation, and the subjects that were immediately useful in forming the character.
If we place character education in the forefront of our efforts with our children, I think homeschoolers have it both easier and harder than non-homeschoolers. If your child goes to school, you have to pack all that character training in around the edges, in the evenings, and on the weekends. You might have to counteract "character training" that is happening in school. Homeschoolers, however, have plenty of time. We have all the time in the world to work on character ... and they have all the time in the world to observe and absorb every character flaw we have. Isocrates might not be impressed. I know that many of you homeschool for the purpose of putting character education first; that has never been my primary reason, but I can take this as a call to do better.
Posted by lynx at January 21, 2008 10:48 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/2568
Comments
I'm extremely biased on this point, but I consider it a blight on someone's education if they've never read Mistral, Neruda, or Garcia Marquez in the original tongue.
I weep for a generation of lit majors who have read "One Hundred Years of Solitude" (instead of "Cien anos de soledad") and say "Oh, how beautiful the writing". It's like commenting on the sunset while turned away from it.
Well, I believe that mankind should learn poetry, geometry, the wonders of astronomy, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, string theory, good choral music, that the novels of Jane Austin are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Jose Canseco belongs in the Hall of Fame for exposing the steroid conspiracy.. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing the Boston Red Sox and self-righteous faux anarchists who wear Che tee-shirts. I believe in talk radio, the national endowment for the arts, that I'll take Winslow Homer over Edward Hopper and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.
Posted by: geek at January 22, 2008 10:41 PM
Amen!
And you know, I'm much more to your way of thinking. I'm just playing with the readings and the thoughts.
Except for the bit about Jane Austen. I may have to hurt you, for that.
Er ... I never got past the short story stage in Spanish. Great, another challenge!
Posted by: Stephanie at January 22, 2008 11:28 PM
I think I'm just bored with Jane Austen, probably because on the extensive filmography and cultural prominence. I fear that one day we'll have presidential debates that ask for people's take on Mr. Darcy. (Ugh, give me an evolution question any day).
One particular Austen/feminist academic I know told me once that Hispanic literature has no value because it's all patriarchy and machismo. The sad thing is that she's read almost nothing that didn't come from England. Even if she ignored the male Hispanic writers, you could still spend years just reading the female writers, and they encompass every possible political and philosophical persuasion (Ibarbarou, Augstini, Storni, Mistral, Gorritti, Sor Juana, Allende, de la Parra, Gómez de Avellaneda are a decent cross-section). Of course, most would have to read them in English, but that's a better than the alternative.
Some people judge the value of an education based on what books someone's read, and they trot out Ivy League-ish reading lists filled with, well, self-indulgent crap. (I read and comment frequently on a particular blog, where one permablogger one day suggested that we first read a list of 20 books before we should be allowed to comment on her post. One of the books was hers. Seriously.) If that's the case, well then, most Ivy League reading lists are just boring.
Then again, in order to get to the really good writers, one's got to be able to read in a foreign language, whether it be Latin or whatever...
Posted by: geek at January 23, 2008 3:06 AM
The minute one writes that an education is incomplete without having read [insert titles or authors of choice here], haven't we merely, once again, reduced education to a reading list? Even worse, sometimes it reduces education to a single subject: literature.
For us, personally, we don't study the ancient Greeks and Romans because they wrote the absolute best literature or had the best philosophers. We study them because their civilizations form the foundation of our own. How can we understand our own culture without understanding the Greeks and the Romans, when their ideas and ideals are still floating around today's world? Is this practical? Absolutely!
It's not that Hispanic (or French or Russian or whatever) literature is worthless to me, either in the original language or translated. However, while much of their literature may have influenced my culture, it did not form it. To a certain extent, studying the literature and cultures of other western civilizations is studying different roads taken, but all those roads originated, to a certain extent, in ancient Greece and Rome.
As for the actual blog post :), I think I can see Socrates' point about astronomy being less than useful. Studying theories is not formative, and today, several thousand years later, our astronomers are still studying and formulating theories and gathering information. There's nothing there to master. It won't make one a better writer, a better speaker, or even more informed about our own world. The same can't be said of Latin, the progym, logic, etc. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think we should confuse the idea of "utilitarian" education with modern concepts of "job training." And if that IS what he meant, then I guess I have to disagree with Socrates. ;)
Now I have to go take a look at this book...
Posted by: KathyJo at January 24, 2008 4:28 PM
You beat me to it, KathyJo. O geek, I was kind of chuckling, comparing your first and second posts. AND THEN there's the fact that my degree is in English literature. I am completely willing to accept that my life will be greatly enhanced by reading some of these authors you've mentioned (I've only read a very little Allende and Neruda and I'd actually like it if you gave me pointers on where to start with Spanish lit.), but heck, even with my love of Jane Austen, I don't know that my kids will *study* her. And I don't think I'd call anyone uneducated who didn't read her.
But then, I am sure I have made the statement that you're uneducated (in our modern Western way) if you don't know Shakespeare. That's because his writings have become so foundational to the rest of Western literature, and offer such wonderful statements on the nature of humanity, and they are not to be missed. As Kathy Jo said, we're studying the Greeks, and the Romans, and the Brits, because of their foundational status. There's foundational, and there's enriching. And then there's stuck-up academics (like the one you mentioned) who think they can redefine foundational at will.
(And in our house, Asimov and Heinlein are foundational. Argument and question are not permitted.)
And yeah, most reading lists are just boring. I started out with that attitude toward education, and it's *really hard* to get away from.
Aristotle is the next reading, and so far I agree with him more. On some points. He made a case for strictly utilitarian learning being detrimental to a free mind, and thought that enriching and leisure studies were important. That's much better. (On the other hand, he thought it should all be controlled by the state, which is not ...)
Check it out, Kathy Jo. The readings are small enough to be dealable at the rate of one a week, and I think it's fascinating reading. Mind you, it is all with a conservative, classical bent - no Holt to be found here. It would be fun (for me) to look at readings like that, too. Crap, have I just made a case for grad school?
Posted by: Stephanie at January 24, 2008 10:06 PM