Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Wednesday, March 8. 2017Know-nothing college grads
On a related topic, Prof. Deneen is struck by the lack of knowledge about the fundamentals of history and culture among his students at elite institutions, HOW A GENERATION LOST ITS COMMON CULTURE. I suspect he is talking about the common elite culture, because I don't think the average guy or gal on the street in 1950 could tell you much about Magna Carta, Saul of Tarsus, or John Milton. I might be wrong about that. In any event, the democratization of culture and of higher ed has resulted in the loss of basic cultural knowledge among the educated such that the numbers of those able to transfer the knowledge, as citizens and parents, shrinks. Or does it? Maybe it was always like that. I remember being confused once in high school social studies when the teacher joked that nobody cared about Plato's Republic and nobody read it. Confused because my Dad often referred to it. A quote from Deneen:
I had the advantage of attending a college where the cultural foundations were required, and came first. The result was that every grad knew the Inferno - and the Bible too. There are a lot of basics that the highly-educated youth that I interview know nothing about. What's your opinion on all of this?
Posted by The Barrister
in Education, The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation
at
14:12
| Comments (48)
| Trackbacks (0)
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
My opinion is that it's one thing to not have deep knowledge and quite another to not care.
The troubling aspect to me, as the stepmom of a student attending a $30,000 private school, is the lack of intellectual passion shown by my stepdaughter and her friends. They don't care that they are floating on a sea of ignorance because they are rock solid in their entitlement that they will go to the best schools and they will get the best jobs out there. It's unbelievably depressing how entitled these kids are - my stepkid can't read cursive handwriting (forget about writing it) yes her response when she gets a card from her grandfather that she can't read is closer to contempt than regret; she just tosses it aside and goes back to her phone. Entitled and ignorant is no way to go through life, yet she and her friends are on track to be admitted to the Ivies in a few years with the education they're getting because that is simply the standard these days. That reminded me of a mom who noted online somewhere her daughter would just put the can back if it required a can opener as she couldn't operate one.
daughter has taught mom to open cans for her. whose fault is that?
Helicopter parenting is a big part of creating this attitude of entitled helplessness, yes.
I very much preferred Niven and Pournelle's Inferno to Dante's. I cannot imagine any high school in America reading any of those books and discussing them.
If there was one book that I would recommend for these times in America it would be Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War. That book is timeless. In one read it convinces the reader that nothing at all politically, has changed in over 2500 years. Studying that disastrous war in depth is an excellent way to demonstrate the shortcomings of real democracy. The Greek developed the foundation of western culture but they failed to develop a civilization.
David Gelertner wrote a very good article to this effect a year or so ago. He said they are all bright and eager and literally know nothing.
I'm a Baby Boomer and I've been around. In the social and business arena, I have found that quoting the Classics or using an example from the Classics draws one of two responses...one of "eye-rolling" distain--usually from someone younger, and the other that is a"nod" of affirmation and maybe a comment like "I've read that as well--usually from another Baby Boomer or someone even older.
"The Bible" category still appears on Jeopardy from time to time. Educated people run the category. Same with Shakespeare.
I am 64 and did not begin to learn the important stuff about our culture and history until I was in my 40s and 50s. Everything was self taught.
My dad grew up in Nazi Germany and he told me his experience was the same, and that his father also told him the same thing. Our young people spend far too much time in school. The young are pig-ignorant, selfish, stupid and lazy and the best we can do is teach them a trade, be it plumbing, lawyering, doctoring or rocket scientisting, and stop them from voting until they have the shit kicked out of them by life. Now that I'm older, I've come to the realization that it was a huge mistake for the United States to lower the voting age from 21 to 18.
Maybe with all the research now showing that the human brain doesn't finish developing until age 25 we can raise the voting age back to 21 again. QUOTE: But ask them some basic questions about the civilization they will be inheriting, and be prepared for averted eyes and somewhat panicked looks. Who fought in the Peloponnesian War? Who taught Plato, and whom did Plato teach? How did Socrates die? Raise your hand if you have read both the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Canterbury Tales? Paradise Lost? The Inferno? While we certainly appreciate the history of western civilization and the value classic literature, keep in mind that people today know things that their ancestors did not, such as how to operate a computer. Modern specialties are also far more complex, so university students unfortunately tend to lose some breadth in their educations. It used to be that people learned to read Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico in the original Latin. But that was at a time when a university education was more about making connections that would be useful later in life, with the learning providing a way to distinguish those within the accepted group of elites. By the way, Dante's Inferno was just the first part of a trilogy, Divine Comedy. Understanding Dante's cosmology requires reading all three parts. Just wondering......don't you think everybody on here knows it is a trilogy?
Perfect! You don't even understand the issue.
But you provide a textbook study of the prideful ignorance being discussed. My guess is paid trolls from Brandeis. DrTorch: But you provide a textbook study of the prideful ignorance being discussed.
We raised three issues: • Modern students know — and must know — many things that their ancestors did not. • The high degree of specialization necessary in modern technological society means that there is an inevitable sacrifice of breadth. • Much of the learning of the past was class-signaling. Waving your hands thinking you are making some sort of point doesn't make for a convincing argument. you got burned again and still don't understand why.
Let's try an illustration.
Once upon a time, all educated persons (which was a small minority of the population) knew the Bible and perhaps a couple of other works, such as Pilgrim's Progress or Shakespeare, and being able to recite long sections of these books was the mark of an educated person. Then came a time when libraries became crowded with books, and sometimes you might pull a familiar book from the shelf and not even remember many of its details, or even if or when you read it. As for reciting long sections, that went the way of the buggy whip. Times change. What was a classic to someone in the 19th century may not be a classic today. Since then, the library has become crowded with other great writers, Hemingways and Woolfs and Fitzgeralds and Huxleys. And today, readers skip from one great writer to another. So is something lost? Of course! But something is gained too. Yes, you have to work to keep the classics from being crowded out. But blaming the modern generation is silly. There are more educated, discerning, and curious learners today than there have ever been in the history of the world. Oh, that's what the cause of their ignorance of history etc is: they've been learning to use smart phones and program computer, all that new tech stuff! Yes, surely. That's why the DNC was so easy to hack that everybody in the world has been able to read Podesta's emails and Hillary Clinton's bathroom email server used when she was Secretary of State leaked classified U.S. government information to every 14-year old hacker. Because they in fact don't know and don't care to know one single blessed thing about how to accomplish anything. They expect us to hand it to them on a silver platter and say, "Thank you, sir (or ma'am as may be) to boot. Spoiled brats is what they are.
Athens and Sparta (leading others), Socrates and Aristotle, Iliad, Odyssey, Canterbury Tales, Inferno and no college. Last month I lent money to a friend who was a grad student at the University of Chicago. I spent half my life drunk and chasing women and still ended up with a larger nest egg than almost all my friends who went to college in the '70's and ridiculed me. College is an investment on par with the lottery.
'I spent half my life drunk and chasing women..'
Let me guess, you wasted the other half. 😁 I read Plato's Republic when I was in high school, early high school. However, it was years later that I finally understood he was gay and that's why he thought it better to raise children in barracks.
Allan Bloom saw it in 1987. It is worse now. I did manage to get my children educated but I do worry about my grand children. This suggest a Cybernetic Law: Learning is inversely proportional to raw bandwidth.
Before the Internet, you had to carefully pick out a book to read. Better make it a good one. Now, with all the books ever written just a click and $3.99 away, nobody reads books anymore. Remember the days of five TV channels? We were agog at the thought we soon would have five hundred. Well now we have them, and it's not Newton Minow's vast wasteland any more. No, it's a blasted broken smoking devastation, a foul and reeking plain of Gorgoroth, one or two channels you like, and 499 you detest. And of course, from instant comm with your gang, we have devolved to once again be bands of chattering primates in the forest. Always talking, observing, time so fully occupied staying in the present looking at the thing and people right in front of you, there's no time to learn, and perhaps no need. Our reach has exceeded our grasp. The old world is in abeyance, and the new world is aborning. The Fourth (or is it the Fifth?) Age of Men is almost over, and we see nothing that says "Aha! Thus begins the New Age." John A. Fleming: This suggest a Cybernetic Law: Learning is inversely proportional to raw bandwidth.
Rather, the depth of knowledge for a particular subject by a person is inversely proportional to the bandwidth of total knowledge. People still learn, indeed, there are more people alive today who know more about most any particular subject than at any time in history. It's just that there are so many more people, and so many more fields of knowledge. John A. Fleming: We were agog at the thought we soon would have five hundred. Well now we have them, and it's not Newton Minow's vast wasteland any more. No, it's a blasted broken smoking devastation, a foul and reeking plain of Gorgoroth, one or two channels you like, and 499 you detest. There was a lot of junk written in the past. It's just that nobody remembers it. Sad but true: the collected works of Anóitos the Daft hardly bear a mention nowadays. Yep. Gotta be a bot, z^d* is. Couldn't resist the clickbait, and didn't have a clue what I was talking about. But the humans get it right away.
John A. Fleming: didn't have a clue what I was talking about.
We understood your point, but disagreed with it. Your claim is that bandwidth overwhelms humans so that they cease to learn. Our claim is that humans continue to learn, albeit different things, and do so in a manner different than previously. You might try to either bolster your claim, or try to find an area of agreement. Your claim is stupid, because in your ignorance you know not what you claim.
I can program computers, design and wire and plumb a house, and rebuild a carburetor. What I cannot do, like my great-grandfather could, is read the track of every animal in the forest, know the call of every bird, make and set a trap for fish or hare with only a pocketknife and a hatchet. Those excellent skills would be just as time consuming to learn as my own. And just as useful in their time. But while all those skills are good and useful, none of them reaches up to the concepts involved in understanding human virtues and characteristics, morals and the societies they operate in, and the institutions we've so painstakingly evolved to sustain them. And without an understanding of history, including the history of religion and of enlightenment ideas, you don't really even know who you are. Just because you are clever in a small new way, does not mean you are wise. Just the opposite.
#11.1.1.1.1
Country Mouse
on
2017-03-10 13:12
(Reply)
Country Mouse: What I cannot do, like my great-grandfather could, is read the track of every animal in the forest, know the call of every bird, make and set a trap for fish or hare with only a pocketknife and a hatchet.
As this sub-thread concerns a proposed "Cybernetic Law", you seem to be actually supporting our position. Country Mouse: And without an understanding of history, including the history of religion and of enlightenment ideas, you don't really even know who you are. Nowhere have we indicated that history or the foundations of human society aren't important. We strongly support the study of the foundations of civilization. Consider a simple example. An education person in the 19th century would learn about the Napoleonic Wars, but wouldn't learn anything about WWII. A modern student must learn both, which means not quite as much of each. You certainly aren't suggesting people should learn about Napoleon but not about Hitler?
#11.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2017-03-10 15:00
(Reply)
In a way I feel a little sorry for teachers. They have to educate thousands upon thousands and what is important and not important for educational purposes changes with the political climate, in other words constantly. For many years it was start them out with basics and let them find their way upward with more sophisticated material. Then they left came along and said that the basics were either unimportant or bad and shouldn't be taught and since they had captured the part of the political establishment that paid for all of this they got their way and changed the curriculum.
Thus public education has it's good points (higher literacy, arithmetical competency, social problem solving), but also it's bad point, mainly subject to the political whims of the establishment of which we have been seeing since the 60's. How can we expect these young people to do any better with system now in place? My opinion is that he's chasing the wrong bus. Youts need to learn to walk before they can run. They don't understand the basics of their own civilization and what made it great. They often actively attack it bc that's what they're being taught to do.
They'll care about the Greeks when they learn to appreciate Western Civilization as it exists today. I went to an excellent high school in Boston and got three degrees in engineering, and not once did I encounter or get any instruction in the classics. However, over the years I have on my own read most of them. Recently I even read Mandelbaum's excellent verse translation of Dante's "Divine Comedy."
In the end, I must say that I am sympathic with Curtis' opinion that Niven and Pournelle are preferable to Dante. The shear number of notes in Mandelbaum's translation proves that Dante is unintelligible to us moderns. Actually, much of the classics, especially the earliest like Don Quixote and Le Morte D'Arthur are unreadable. So, I am not shocked or even concerned that modern college students get no education. They need to do that on their own, and they would be better off if they did not have to listen to diatribes from ignorant and bigoted professors. But they do need the union card. The left has turned our universities into Boob Factories.
Our three children were homeschooled using a Classical Studies approach. They were required to not only read but discuss Plato, Shakespeare, the Bible, Augustine, etc. We not only taught them to read phonetically but instilled in them a love of learning and a curiosity about the world. As college educated adults now, they still love to read and learn. Oh, and all three can read and write in cursive. I realize not every family has the option to homeschool, but our 21 years was well worth it.
Who fought in the Peloponnesian War? Who taught Plato, and whom did Plato teach? How did Socrates die? Raise your hand if you have read both the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Canterbury Tales? Paradise Lost? The Inferno?
I can answer the trivia about Plato and Socrates. I have read the Iliad, not the Odyssey (but I did see 'O Brother Where Art Thou?'). I've read some, but not all, of the Canterbury Tales. None of Paradise Lost. The entire Divine Comedy. But I'm a science guy. So I can explain some use of the Mean Value Theorem, and can integrate by parts. I know the difference between fugacity and activity, Le Chatelier's principle and can discuss the Debye-Huckel Limiting Law. I've induced sniggers by mentioning the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation in mixed company. I can describe how lasers work, and discuss spectroscopy as it pertains to most of the EM spectrum. So am I really uneducated? DrTorch: but I did see 'O Brother Where Art Thou?'
Where ever have we seen a blind seer foretelling the travails of our hero? But have you seen Sullivan's Travels? Then you had to have read Gulliver's Travels, of course, which is chalk full of allusions from Horace to Descartes. We read some classics in both high school and college. My sense of familiarity with them comes more, maybe, from reading I've done sense. I've noticed that I tend to forget how little I knew when I was 22, because I tend to compress into that memory a lot of things I've learned since.
It was very difficult to get into the mindset of some of those old works when I was so young. "Rasselas" in particular was a complete mystery to me in high school. That's not to say it wasn't important for my teachers to insist that I get started on them; my mind certainly needed opening up. On the other hand, I'm not at at all sure about any particular canon of classics. I advocate a good mix, to counteract ignorant parochialism, both geographic and temporal. The questions of Plato and Socrates reveal the prejudices of the 19th century infatuation with Greece and Rome. How many know of the history of Roman Briton or the Anglo-Saxon period?
Can people decipher this statement know who Offa and Ecgbert were? QUOTE: The eorls and ceorls of Offa and Ecgbert could not read or write, and did not receive a weekly newspaper with such information as newspapers in that age could supply; yet neither their houses, their clothing, their food and drink, their agricultural tools and methods, their stock, nor their habits were so greatly altered or improved by time that they would have found much difficulty in accommodating their lives to that of their descendants in the eighteenth century. --History of the United States During the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson by Henry Adams How about the military custom of the Dining In having traditions that can be seen in the early 7th/8th century Anglo-Saxon feasts. On the other hand, college don't teach irony like they used to
At Instapundit yesterday: "Student union bans Conservative society from speaking out – because they challenged its position on free speech." Zachariel said
"such as how to operate a computer" Tell me, Z, how does it work? Bless your heart. Maybe he could also tell us how to operate a tractor and plow a field, bridle a horse, weave on a mechanical loom or even a simple one, dig a well, and fell a tree (safely) with an axe.
All of that must be simple since most people today can operate a computer. DrTorch: Maybe he could also tell us how to operate a tractor and plow a field, bridle a horse, weave on a mechanical loom or even a simple one, dig a well, and fell a tree (safely) with an axe.
Good examples. Bridling a horse is now a specialty skill, one which the vast majority of young adults can't do. However, the vast majority of young adults can operate a computer. And it turns out that playing video games has a military application. “It’s much slower paced {than a video game}, graphics aren’t quite as good, the controls aren’t quite the same,” {the drone pilot} said. “It’s sort of like a video game, but nobody would buy to play this video game.” Mr. Bruce: Tell me, Z, how does it work?
Ask Ben Franklin to show you how. At age 50 I returned to college. I was surprised that 60% of just graduates high school students had to take remedial math and English classes. Few could speak without a redundancy of slang and jargon. The guys couldn't recognize a wrench from needle nose and the none of girls the girls could cook.
Now they weren't stupid, when it came to a video game or pop music the were able to recite every fact and detail that was known.... I am more than 50% in agreement with Zachriel on this one.
The shift came decades ago, if indeed it is about anything real. CS Lewis's De Descritione Temporum is from 1954, after all, at one of the half-dozen most prestigious universities in the world at the time. https://www.romanroadsmedia.com/old-western-culture-extras/DeDescriptioneTemporum-CS-Lewis.pdf (recommended.) Even then, and certainly before, those prestigious unis were populated with the children of the wealthy as well as the scholarly. I suspect that the percentage of people who had more than a superficial knowledge of any of this information was always vanishingly small. No, education in the Good Olde Dayes was not superior. I don't think people here recognize how select a sample they are, commenting about the history of classical education on an internet site. Your relatives, the friends you remember, and your own experiences are wildly unrepresentative of not only the general population, but even the educated population. The only real change I can identify is that the elites no longer look to the same canon for wisdom, and so what they pass on to the larger culture in dilute form is also changed. There is some continuity, but high culture is always changing. Some would say widening - I would say eroding. I went to school in the 40's and 50's just 11 miles North of where you went to school and we did study the classics. My entire 8th grade English class was shakespeare. Everyday we read it or acted it. We even built a model of his theater which sat on the teachers desk the entire year. I don't think we completed 100% of his work but came close. My 9th grade English was classic greek literature every day. We read out loud in class and discussed it as a class everyday with reading homework every night. My tenth grade English We had a reading list of the classics that was assigned as homework every night for the entire year. The only way you could get an A was to read all 40 on the list and turn in a book report. But during class it was poetry, every day poetry. I didn't even like most poetry but I learned about it because I had no choice. Tenth grade I also took ancient history which also had a reading list for homework of some of the greek classics.
I'm only pointing out that this was done in years past and it was done without difficulty or complaint. This was not a tough top level school it was one of three public high schools in an industrial middle class city. The students were just normal kids and the teachers were no different than what you would expect anywhere in America in the 50's. We could do this today in every school if we wanted to. If they can't teach our common culture in school, I'd settle for at least not teaching them to hate it.
|