It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => The "Educators" => Topic started by: LadyVirginia on November 03, 2011, 04:41:00 PM
-
Or, why Rush Limbaugh should not have said what he said yesterday.
My daughter sent me a link (http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=22461) to another column by Dr. Birzer about education. She had him for two classes at Hillsdale College and follows all his postings across the internet. If you recall I linked to his article last week titled Liberal Education and Christian Humanism here: http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,3579.0.html (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,3579.0.html)
Until my children reached high school I too looked askance at "liberal arts" learning. I had no idea what it was! In our home school for high school my children read books I 'd never been introduced to in school including The Iliad of Homer; The Odyssey of Homer; Aeschylus, The Oresteian Trilogy; Sophocles, The Theban Tragedies and Great Dialogues of Plato.
Quoting from the course catalog where we purchased the books:
"It introduces the student to the foundational works of Greek literature and Western culture, as well as to the study of genres and literary forms. The texts of antiquity are studied for their universal appeal to the human experience, as well as for their influence upon the great thinkers and development of the West. The Greek epics, plays, and philosophy are referenced throughout the literary and intellectual works of Western thinkers to this day."
They also read Herodotus: The Histories; Thucydides: The History of the Peloponnesian War; Plutarch, The Rise and Fall of Athens: Nine Greek Lives and Xenophon: The Persian Expedition.
Quoting from the same catalog:
"This course will enable the student to observe the timelessness of human relations and the similarities of man’s responses to the conditions in which he finds himself, across time periods; discover the similarities of and difference between ancient Greek and Christian ideas of virtue; trace the cause and effect of political developments in the ancient world and, by extension, in the modern; identify the periods of ancient history and major characters of the period; become familiar with the map of the ancient world and the seeds of modern conflicts; and relate modern historical situations and documents to their ancient antecedents."
This the same type of liberal arts education that's offered at Hillsdale College. They don't have women's studies or the history of tv, etc, etc. Sure you can be an accounting major or biology major but you must take core liberal arts classes for the first two years.
My twenty-something daughter sent me Dr. Birzer latest observations with this email:
Unlike Dr. Birzer, I do like Rush most of the time. However, Rush's comment about the uselessness of studying the classics is in line with other unfortunate comments I have seen conservatives make. There seem to be a couple of strains in the conservative movement when it comes to education. One group believes in the importance of a classical and great books education--education for the purpose of discovering the good, the true, and the beautiful. The other group believes that a liberal arts education is worthless--that most people are better off learning a trade. Unfortunately, the New Left of the Sixties did a lot of damage to the reputation of a liberal arts education by introducing various "studies" (peace studies, women's studies, etc). I think it is for that reason that many conservatives today are suspicious of the liberal arts. Nevertheless, any student who honestly engages with classical or other great texts will be exposed to timeless truths. Therefore, it is a big mistake to tell someone not to study the classics.
Birzer asks in the article:
Yesterday, as Christopher Perrin has reported it, Rush Limbaugh berated a person for having majored in “classical studies.”
<snip>
If Mr. Limbaugh doesn’t recognize the importance of the liberal arts and classical studies, what does he hope to conserve with his conservatism?
From what little of I know of Limbaugh, I know he speaks affectionately of the Founding Fathers. But, of course, the majority of Founding Fathers were classically educated. It would have been impossible to have had an American Founding without the classics.
Read the rest here: LINK (http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=22461)
A link to Rush's comments are included at that site.
-
I have no issue with studying Greek Lit or classical literature......I do have an issue with those who spend mountains of money in this field, can't find a job and now expect me to pay for thier education. This needs to be a part of the educational experience and frankly, needs to be something you enjoy for your life.....
But it ain't gonna pay the bills.....so Rush had a point...he could have structured it better, but it is a worthless major in regards to making money.
-
I have no issue with studying Greek Lit or classical literature......I do have an issue with those who spend mountains of money in this field, can't find a job and now expect me to pay for thier education. This needs to be a part of the educational experience and frankly, needs to be something you enjoy for your life.....
But it ain't gonna pay the bills.....so Rush had a point...he could have structured it better, but it is a worthless major in regards to making money.
Agreed, as a minor, because spending $80K on Classical Studies as a major certainly does introduce "the student to the foundational works of Greek literature and Western culture, as well as to the study of genres and literary forms. The texts of antiquity are studied for their universal appeal to the human experience, as well as for their influence upon the great thinkers and development of the West. The Greek epics, plays, and philosophy are referenced throughout the literary and intellectual works of Western thinkers to this day."
... and ...
"enable the student to observe the timelessness of human relations and the similarities of man’s responses to the conditions in which he finds himself, across time periods; discover the similarities of and difference between ancient Greek and Christian ideas of virtue; trace the cause and effect of political developments in the ancient world and, by extension, in the modern; identify the periods of ancient history and major characters of the period; become familiar with the map of the ancient world and the seeds of modern conflicts; and relate modern historical situations and documents to their ancient antecedents."
.... but unless one intends to find employment teaching it as well, it doesn't pay the bills.
-
Maybe we need to rethink the purpose of a college education. Is it supposed to be an education or job training?
Studying the humanities can actually make one quite prepared for a job, but it's a question of marketing oneself. Studying classics, history, English, etc. enables a person to think and to write--very important qualities for just about any job out there. I cannot cite an actual source, but I have read elsewhere that a lot of top CEOs were actually English majors, not business majors. I've also read that in the 1980s companies like IBM recruited classics majors. They did this because they believed anyone could be taught how to program a computer (being something learned through training), but not everyone could think. They wanted to get the brightest, most educated people and then give them the specific training they would need for the job. (Companies have recruited from Hillsdale for the same reason. They wanted people who could think.)
This problem really is a result of the push for certification, etc. It is now in the minds of both students and employers that one must have taken some type of classes that taught job training in order to work in that field. That is not how it should be.
For what does a job-specific major prepare one? The answer--that job and little else. Someone who only takes accounting, for example is not going to be in a position make a career change easily without additional education. On the other hand, someone who studies history or classics has a firm foundation to explore a variety of career options because they can think.
There is a common misconception that the liberal arts consists of only the humanities. This is not true. Science and math also play an equal role in a true liberal arts education because the good, the true, and the beautiful are also found there.
-
Maybe we need to rethink the purpose of a college education. Is it supposed to be an education or job training?
It's both, which is why I believe one needs a major in bill-paying and a minor in the classics.
Studying the humanities can actually make one quite prepared for a job, but it's a question of marketing oneself. Studying classics, history, English, etc. enables a person to think and to write--very important qualities for just about any job out there. I cannot cite an actual source, but I have read elsewhere that a lot of top CEOs were actually English majors, not business majors. I've also read that in the 1980s companies like IBM recruited classics majors. They did this because they believed anyone could be taught how to program a computer (being something learned through training), but not everyone could think. They wanted to get the brightest, most educated people and then give them the specific training they would need for the job. (Companies have recruited from Hillsdale for the same reason. They wanted people who could think.)
Apparently, companies do not want to spend the additional money training in computer-programming today, or computer-related skills. The technology is not what it was in the 80's either; seems it got a lot more complicated and a crash-course, even when one is trained to think, is not enough. Also, one does not leave college now with a wealth of offers to become CEO; usually one has experience elsewhere first.
This problem really is a result of the push for certification, etc. It is now in the minds of both students and employers that one must have taken some type of classes that taught job training in order to work in that field. That is not how it should be.
Well, that's how it is. Plus, keep in mind, college educations are marketed as tickets to the big bucks, but a degree in the Humanities or Classics is not a certification for anything, as today's young people are discovering. A Cisco Certification, for instance (certain computer-related fields) costs thousands and takes months to acquire.
For what does a job-specific major prepare one? The answer--that job and little else. Someone who only takes accounting, for example is not going to be in a position make a career change easily without additional education. On the other hand, someone who studies history or classics has a firm foundation to explore a variety of career options because they can think.
There is a common misconception that the liberal arts consists of only the humanities. This is not true. Science and math also play an equal role in a true liberal arts education because the good, the true, and the beautiful are also found there.
That's why a well-educated person needs both -- the job training and the other.
[/quote]
-
Maybe we need to rethink the purpose of a college education. Is it supposed to be an education or job training?
Studying the humanities can actually make one quite prepared for a job, but it's a question of marketing oneself. Studying classics, history, English, etc. enables a person to think and to write--very important qualities for just about any job out there. I cannot cite an actual source, but I have read elsewhere that a lot of top CEOs were actually English majors, not business majors. I've also read that in the 1980s companies like IBM recruited classics majors. They did this because they believed anyone could be taught how to program a computer (being something learned through training), but not everyone could think. They wanted to get the brightest, most educated people and then give them the specific training they would need for the job. (Companies have recruited from Hillsdale for the same reason. They wanted people who could think.)
This problem really is a result of the push for certification, etc. It is now in the minds of both students and employers that one must have taken some type of classes that taught job training in order to work in that field. That is not how it should be.
For what does a job-specific major prepare one? The answer--that job and little else. Someone who only takes accounting, for example is not going to be in a position make a career change easily without additional education. On the other hand, someone who studies history or classics has a firm foundation to explore a variety of career options because they can think.
There is a common misconception that the liberal arts consists of only the humanities. This is not true. Science and math also play an equal role in a true liberal arts education because the good, the true, and the beautiful are also found there.
I believe your post strengthens the idea this should be a minor instead of your major. All you said is true...so if your minor is educational and your major is job related, it is a win/
win.
oops, sorry Pan. You are quicker to the post.
-
I haven't listened to Rush's critique. But the chatter I've heard on the subject over the past weeks has centered around the futility of going into debt for $100K on an education in some field that gives one little to no hope of being able to repay the loan. This has been eloquently highlighted by the OWS crowd who seem incredulous that their degrees in History, English, Queer Studies, Women's Studies, or Social Justice not only fails to place them in the 1%, but they can't get a job outside teaching their major if at all.
-
I agree with the thrust of LV's argument. There is a continuous debate about the merits of theory vs. practice when it comes to the purpose of education. The Left have done much to sully the word "theory" and I think that is unfortunate not simply because of the intellectual garbage it foists on us in the name of scholasticism, but also because it encourages a certain tendency of anti-intellectualism on the Right. Limbaugh's dismissive assessment of the worth of formally studying the Classics is an example, one that I found a bit disappointing, though I ultimately blame the Left since it is they who have created this popular foil: academia as a font of self-mockery.
I am of the opinion that academia exists (or should exist) to promote study and research, including things that are not necessarily connected to any particular economic utility. That is why academic institutions are so often non-profit and sustained by endowments. Where else is someone going to find employment researching theoretical mathematics or theoretical physics? Theory begets practice. We would have no Cisco routers if not for research into such esoteric fields as discrete mathematics decades and even centuries ago, by people who, in their own lifetimes, produced very little of tangible value. They contributed to the body of human knowledge and I am glad they didn't end up doing bookkeeping or shoeing horses instead.
Naturally I am not saying this should mean that Little Susie and Johnny Junior should be able to go to State U. and spend 4 (or 5, 6, 8) years studying Environmental Activism Through Cross-Cultural Interpretive Dance on your dime, while expecting to land a 6 figure salary at a government agency or non-profit afterward. That's the mockery the Left have made of academia. But it should not, likewise, be reduced to a glorified program of training-by-rote for some given economic activity.
-
Sorry, no. Spend 4 years and multiple thousands of dollars and come out of the insitution with no marketable skills?
What then? Another 4 years and $80 on either yours or a company's dime learning application?
No.
Where else is someone going to find employment researching theoretical mathematics or theoretical physics? Theory begets practice. We would have no Cisco routers if not for research into such esoteric fields as discrete mathematics decades and even centuries ago, by people who, in their own lifetimes, produced very little of tangible value. They contributed to the body of human knowledge and I am glad they didn't end up doing bookkeeping or shoeing horses instead.
The aforementioned "someones" had applicable skills while doing their research. Today, we can no longer afford to feed, clothe and shelter the stricly theorists and you've stated so yourself.
-
As a frequent Rush listener I remember hearing him saying this and thinking to myself "Oh oh - he's gonna catch hell for that one!"
I think he was just sloppy in his presentation and didn't so much mean "Classical Studies" or "Liberal Education" as he did "Majoring in Womyn's Studies" and the like (just an impression that I get from the theme of many of his monologues).
The fact is that someone has to learn this stuff if for no other reason than to carry it forward. But majoring in it ain't gonna make you a rack star (says the guy who didn't obtain a Liberal Education or study Classic Literature).
Rush's complaint is similar to the Sam Kinison skit I mentioned a few months back - you know, the one where he talked about the starving poor in Africa and the endless aid missions to feed them. Kinison's response? "Move to where the food is!" (Oh, oh, Oooooooh!).
What kind of numb-nutz would invest that much in an education without determining its potential?
Obviously a leftist numb-nutz...
-
Sorry, no. Spend 4 years and multiple thousands of dollars and come out of the insitution with no marketable skills?
What then? Another 4 years and $80 on either yours or a company's dime learning application?
No.
Where else is someone going to find employment researching theoretical mathematics or theoretical physics? Theory begets practice. We would have no Cisco routers if not for research into such esoteric fields as discrete mathematics decades and even centuries ago, by people who, in their own lifetimes, produced very little of tangible value. They contributed to the body of human knowledge and I am glad they didn't end up doing bookkeeping or shoeing horses instead.
The aforementioned "someones" had applicable skills while doing their research. Today, we can no longer afford to feed, clothe and shelter the stricly theorists and you've stated so yourself.
I'm not really even talking about who should have to pay for it. I'm talking about what the "it" should even be. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if the Marxists had not seized upon education as their vehicle of choice to breed the sort of generations we now see defecating in Zucotti Park. The driver of the debate is that education has become so exorbitantly expensive, outpacing inflation easily, and that explosion in cost is predictably due to state intervention -- the consequences of which are then cited as an argument for yet more intervention. This is the next big bubble about to burst in the economy.
Who would care if someone wanted to major in Classical Studies, if they were paying for it with their own money? And would that student care about having to pay with their own money, if the cost of education had not ballooned so dramatically? This is the same basic scenario seen in medicine now. When the payer is decoupled from the payee, the introduction of that third party makes costs go up and efficiency down.
-
Aren't a lot of the things university students learn nowadays under the "liberal arts" banner things that used to be taught in high school? I am a product of the 70s, so I claim no knowledge or authority - we got the worst of the liberal experiment in education. But I've heard folks older than me talk about studying classic literature, history, and philosophy - some of the things LadyV mentioned in her initial post - in high school.
-
Maybe we need to rethink the purpose of a college education. Is it supposed to be an education or job training?
It's both, which is why I believe one needs a major in bill-paying and a minor in the classics.
Ya know, thinking about it, just about the only places one learns a marketable skill with a grounding in the classics are military schools.
I'm sure some Ivy Leaguers will blanch at the thought.
-
What's to stop someone from getting a degree in something useful, then studying whatever they want, later, as a hobby?
I have problems with running up debt for two years, taking stuff that won't help you find a way to start supporting yourself. That's the primary way that the higher education racket has gotten us to where we are today.
We don't need everyone going to college today fluent in Greek Lit. We need everyone going to college today, coming out capable of supporting themselves.
-
I've enjoyed reading the comments.
A few things crossed my mind. I have to say I am stuck on what the purpose of education is and specifically a college education. If it job-training then I think we could dispense with the charade we have now in public schooling and just get on with the job training. It probably would be more successful and cost a whole lot less than pretending we want children to be knowledgeable about great literature, writers and historical events. The schools haven't passed that along very well for a long time.
I think perhaps it would be helpful to understand the purpose of public education is this country. I suggest reading John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education. (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/review_harrison.htm) One reviewer describes up Mr. Gatto's thesis this way:
Along the way, Mr. Gatto makes it increasingly clear that school’s primary goal is not the education of our children. The author builds his argument for this seemingly counter-intuitive claim with an incredible array of research that documents the interlocking development of big business and forced schooling. He painstakingly points out how the captains of industry in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries - when the basic structures of the education system were being set down - influenced, guided, funded, and at times forced compulsory schooling into the mainstream of American society. Perhaps you’ll recognize their names: Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, to mention just a few.
Mr. Gatto argues that these emerging corporate titans knew they needed three things in order for their interests to thrive: 1) compliant employees; 2) a guaranteed and dependent population; and 3) a predictable business environment encompassed by a rigid, caste-like social hierarchy of haves and have-nots. It is toward these ends - and not education - that modern compulsory schooling was unleashed.
I would argue that with these goals (and Mr. Gatto makes a compelling case)from which our schools developed there left little room for the classical education and training our forefathers embraced. Mr. Gatto believes the schools are nothing more than job training centers. This way of thinking has been pushed into colleges. There isn't time to develop an understanding of man's purpose vis-a-vis the great thinkers of the world if a student has to cram in 4 years of various courses in order to prove he or she is qualified for an entry level position. Then years down the road we wonder how it is that so-called educated people can say the things they say and advocate positions lacking in an understanding of history and economic theory.
I found another writer with some interesting comments regarding Rush's comments:
Lurking behind Limbaugh's remarks were assumptions that real conservatives have no business employing, among which is the idea that the purpose of education is job training. In fact, part of the irony of Limbaugh's remarks here is that he's marching under the same flag as people like Hilary Clinton, whose utilitarian views on cultural issues, including education, Limbaugh claims to despise.
Modern education is a confused and toxic admixture of progressivism and pragmatism. Progressivism is the idea that schools should be used to change the culture, and is on clear display in the political correctness and secular religion of Diversity that infect schools from Kindergarten to college. Pragmatism is the idea that schools should be used to fit students to the present culture, and takes the form primarily of vocationalism.
Many people think that public schools fail at what they try to do. And that is partly true. They do a pretty good job of political indoctrination--a process that is not terribly complicated--but do a pretty poor job making students employable. But the primary problem with schools is that they don't even try to do what they should be trying to do.
The alternative to progressivism and pragmatism is the philosophy of education that preceded them: classical education. The purpose of classical education was neither to change culture through political indoctrination nor to fit children to the culture through vocationalism. The purpose of every school before the advent of John Dewey and others in the late 19th century was to pass on a culture, and one culture in particular: the culture of the Christian West.
read the rest here (http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/2011/11/rush-limbaugh-attacks-education-of.html)
I believe the lack of understanding of the culture of the Christian West is rampant and accounts for many of the ills we suffer today. And this is why the culture of Marxism and any other anti-west ideology has appeal because it fills the vacuum left by not knowing our own western culture.
-
A good "liberal arts" education should be part of every college degree program. A clear understanding of human history, the arts, humanities, natural sciences and social sciences is a key part of our cultural intelligence as citizens and informed voters. Every degree program should have requisite course material that covers this base knowledge, regardless of major.
The problem with "liberal arts" education today is that too many in academia want to avoid teaching western civilization, and instead focus on a Howard Zinn perspective on western history (white man evil). As a result, many degreed young people exit college without a true liberal arts education.
In addition to that, there are a lot more people going to college and getting degrees (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_212.asp?referrer=report). In 1967, you had 34% of 18-24 year olds seeking college degrees. In 2009 you had 49% of 18-24 year olds doing so.
To employers that means more mediocrity among various liberal arts majors. So an "english" degree of 40 years meant a lot more than it does today by far.
Compounding the problem is our job market swinging significantly toward more technological fields. So anymore, you're an idiot spending a fortune to major in a liberal arts degree for which few will hire you. My advice to anyone who still chooses to do so is to have a gameplan in school in knowing what job you want, determine how to distinguish yourself to employers, network, intern, and get involved in research projects. that's how I did it. I was a double major - psychology and geography. I approached the RAs in the cognitive psychology department and asked to volunteer. They were more than happy to offload some of their work onto me, and in return I got hands-on experience in conducting experiments. The volunteer gig turned into a workstudy job, which turned into an R&D job out of college in user interface design at a telecom company. There's no way that company would have looked at me twice if I applied with just the degree without the connections I made and experience I gained.
-
Compounding the problem is our job market swinging significantly toward more technological fields. So anymore, you're an idiot spending a fortune to major in a liberal arts degree for which few will hire you. My advice to anyone who still chooses to do so is to have a gameplan in school in knowing what job you want, determine how to distinguish yourself to employers, network, intern, and get involved in research projects. that's how I did it. I was a double major - psychology and geography. I approached the RAs in the cognitive psychology department and asked to volunteer. They were more than happy to offload some of their work onto me, and in return I got hands-on experience in conducting experiments. The volunteer gig turned into a workstudy job, which turned into an R&D job out of college in user interface design at a telecom company. There's no way that company would have looked at me twice if I applied with just the degree without the connections I made and experience I gained.
I would argue that your experience is how it used to be done....you worked your way through and up various jobs and situations to finally arrive at the position you desired. Today kids leave college thinking they can skip that part and go straight to the job they want.
My grandfather went to work at age 14 (early 20th century). I would guess he was probably better educated at 14 than the 14 year olds of today. For the next 50 years he worked for the same company. I can only imagine that what he was doing at 14 wasn't all that exciting or fulfilling or whatever new age term is popular. By the time he hit his 30's he was in the engineering department and during his next 30 years with this company was granted at least 19 patents.
Of course, today that wouldn't happen (even if he were to wait until high school graduation). He would need a degree and probably several. He received patents for bottling machines. Was that easier back then as opposed to today? I doubt it. I've read some of them and they're pretty complicated and detailed (and he didn't have the benefit of computers).
Today kids go to college and then onto grad school for whatever subject and maybe even farther. Pretty soon they're looking at 30 and just finishing school. Are they any better off than the way my grandfather did it? I don't know--except by the age the kids of today are ready for a real job my grandfather had been a working, productive citizen for years and not trapped by a boatload of debt.
-
Michelleo's comment regarding the job market swinging towards technological fields is why we have learning institutions like ITT tech, Devry, U of Phoenix, various nursing schools, etc becoming popular. I'm not endorsing any of these institutions, but isn't this how the market works?
If little liberal jonny and his band of liberal friends do not want to participate in the changing job market and continue to despise capitalism, following thier fearless leader as he funds failing projects in the useless attempt to force his will on the market.....Good luck. We shouldn't be payin' for your stupidity and your whining and crying in your makeshift tent city on town squares.
BTW, get used to living in a tent.
-
Additional thoughts from a post at Ricochet.com (http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Paging-Dr.-Larry-Arnn/(page)/2)
Paging Dr. Larry Arnn
I was driving to my gainful employment as a Latin teacher when I heard Rush Limbaugh discussing how worthless a degree in Classical Studies is. I normally listen to Rush while driving between my private tutoring clients (I own a successful small business) and my duties as a part-time Latin teacher at a preparatory high school.
I feel compelled to comment on this because, as an alumna of Hillsdale College with a degree in Classical Studies from their first-rate department, I have managed to be a small business owner, author, editor, and teacher in my chosen field. What prompted Rush to embark on his rant was the incoherent scribbling of a Classical Studies major in the "We are the 99%" notebook. The author of this gaseous emission was complaining of his/her lack of job prospects and future student loan burden. Rush is right to scoff at the proliferation of degree programs with the dreadful appendage "studies." He is even right to suspect the credentials of a graduate with a degree in Classical Studies from a large, public university, as the leadership of most of these departments have utterly abandoned their posts as guardians of the Western tradition and have rushed to give aid and comfort to the barbarians at the gates. The target of Rush's criticism – a loathsome loser unworthy of calling him/herself a student of the Classics – does indeed deserve the scorn which Rush generously piled on.
But the study of the Western Heritage (including in the original, classical languages) does not deserve that derision. It is what Hillsdale College exists to defend, along with the Judeo-Christian tradition. Why does it matter? Because Rush Limbaugh's endorsement of and frequent on-air commercials for Hillsdale College have been perhaps the most successful marketing campaign that my alma mater has ever attempted.
It was embarrassing for me to listen to Rush's uninformed and utterly juvenile assault on the study of the very thing that he purports to esteem -- Western Civilization. Granted that many students of Classical Studies are lazy whiners who don't really learn much Latin or Greek; granted that many professors of Classical Studies in this country are liberal shills. These facts are chronologically relative and are irrelevant to the question of whether the study of the pillars of Western Civilization is worthy of great minds. I shall not make a list of all the founding fathers who, along with Karl Marx, studied the classics. The study of the Classics and its role in the education of the founders has been well defended and documented in (former Hillsdale faculty member) Tracy Lee Simmons' Climbing Parnassus.
When Latin lost its place in the curriculum of public schools, there was a corresponding collapse in verbal SAT scores. When did this occur? Beginning in 1962. In fact, one could even argue that the exit of Latin from the schools corresponded to the dreaded social and political upheavals of the 1960's. I won't make that argument, but it's at least worth considering, along with other factors. There is a utilitarian argument for Latin. But to make it misses the deeper point about the nature of the mind, its proper cultivation, and the resulting effect on the ability of citizens to be self-governing.
So, Dr. Arnn: are you going to respond? You are one of the most articulate defenders of the Classical and Judeo-Christian foundations of this nation. You are a great and beloved teacher. I think Mr. Limbaugh needs a lesson.
Read Dr. Arnn's response here (http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-Value-of-an-Education-in-Classical-Studies-A-Response-to-Sophrosyne)
-
Here is my take on it.... This is coming from an un-degreed engineer.
My first objective post high school was to get a job and get out of my mothers house. I joined the Air Force (prior to graduating high school I attempted to go to the AF Academy, so I attempted to get a free education to achieve this first objective)
After 4 years in the military, I decided that it was time to get a real job (not much call for a B-52 gunner in the real world) and took an entry level job at a grocery store (bagger). This job was short lived, but I had experience in retail sales for my resume. Notice that getting an education was not my next objective, but being able to support myself was. With this experience on my resume, I applied for a job as a night shift clerk/floor scrubber for a small convenience store chain. Being rather intelligent ( IQ > 160) I soon (within 2 months) was promoted to Shift Manager then (3 months later) to Asst. Manager then when my manager finally completed his degree (in engineering by the way), he suggested that the company promote me to Store Manager (I had worked for the company for less than 1 year). Hard work and a strong work ethic (thanks mom) propelled me to a comfortable living for a 24 year old. Over the course of the next 4 years, I took better paying managerial jobs and eventually ended up as a U-Haul Center General Manager, during this time I also went to a local junior college but was not in pursuit of any particular degree (I took classes that interested me). Then... turmoil. I had to fire my assistant manager at the U-Haul Center and was at the mercy of the local U-Haul company to get a replacement. They dragged their feet for 2 months (all the while I was working 7 days/week 10-15 hours/day), I got fed up and quit without any prospects.
Now I was thinking education... however I didn't have enough savings for something long term, while up late one night I saw an ad on TV "become a draftsman now, enroll at ABC Tech and get your drafting certificate in 6 months". Short term education but I had to pay my bills (rent, food, utilities, etc.) so I went to work for a former employer part time in a lesser capacity than manager. You may notice a theme here "need to stay alive with a roof over my head (that is not free)", I still wanted my independence.
After getting my drafting certificate (including CAD) I applied at all of the major aerospace firms and major sub-tier suppliers. Within 3 months I was hired by Rohr Industries (a local manufacturer of aircraft nacelles) as a draftsman. Remember the IQ? in 1 year I was promoted to Sr. Draftsman, 2 years later to Designer, 2 years later to Engineer. 3 years later to Sr. Engineer. During my time at Rohr I continued going to junior college, and actually had to drop out of a chemistry class to learn CATIA (company training in an advanced CAD tool), since the 2 classes conflicted. I figured that learning the advanced CAD tool was more important to my future job growth than chemistry would be. Now I work for the largest aerospace company in the US (possibly the world) and earn a great living. My whole life was predicated on being independent and being able to support myself and my family.
I started at the bottom (with no objections) and through hard work and perseverance I made it to a position that I am proud of and can support my family quite well. Had I done what my friends from high school had done (gone to college paid for by their parents and lived at home while they did it) I may not be where I am now. On the other hand I may have become an executive at my current employer by this time.
I guess the point I trying to make is that I was not poisoned by higher education, and never expected anything to be handed to me. I worked for everything I have, and now these idiots think they deserve something for nothing, I don't think so!
-
Here is my take on it.... This is coming from an un-degreed engineer.
My first objective post high school was to get a job and get out of my mothers house. I joined the Air Force (prior to graduating high school I attempted to go to the AF Academy, so I attempted to get a free education to achieve this first objective)
After 4 years in the military, I decided that it was time to get a real job (not much call for a B-52 gunner in the real world) and took an entry level job at a grocery store (bagger). This job was short lived, but I had experience in retail sales for my resume. Notice that getting an education was not my next objective, but being able to support myself was. With this experience on my resume, I applied for a job as a night shift clerk/floor scrubber for a small convenience store chain. Being rather intelligent ( IQ > 160) I soon (within 2 months) was promoted to Shift Manager then (3 months later) to Asst. Manager then when my manager finally completed his degree (in engineering by the way), he suggested that the company promote me to Store Manager (I had worked for the company for less than 1 year). Hard work and a strong work ethic (thanks mom) propelled me to a comfortable living for a 24 year old. Over the course of the next 4 years, I took better paying managerial jobs and eventually ended up as a U-Haul Center General Manager, during this time I also went to a local junior college but was not in pursuit of any particular degree (I took classes that interested me). Then... turmoil. I had to fire my assistant manager at the U-Haul Center and was at the mercy of the local U-Haul company to get a replacement. They dragged their feet for 2 months (all the while I was working 7 days/week 10-15 hours/day), I got fed up and quit without any prospects.
Now I was thinking education... however I didn't have enough savings for something long term, while up late one night I saw an ad on TV "become a draftsman now, enroll at ABC Tech and get your drafting certificate in 6 months". Short term education but I had to pay my bills (rent, food, utilities, etc.) so I went to work for a former employer part time in a lesser capacity than manager. You may notice a theme here "need to stay alive with a roof over my head (that is not free)", I still wanted my independence.
After getting my drafting certificate (including CAD) I applied at all of the major aerospace firms and major sub-tier suppliers. Within 3 months I was hired by Rohr Industries (a local manufacturer of aircraft nacelles) as a draftsman. Remember the IQ? in 1 year I was promoted to Sr. Draftsman, 2 years later to Designer, 2 years later to Engineer. 3 years later to Sr. Engineer. During my time at Rohr I continued going to junior college, and actually had to drop out of a chemistry class to learn CATIA (company training in an advanced CAD tool), since the 2 classes conflicted. I figured that learning the advanced CAD tool was more important to my future job growth than chemistry would be. Now I work for the largest aerospace company in the US (possibly the world) and earn a great living. My whole life was predicated on being independent and being able to support myself and my family.
I started at the bottom (with no objections) and through hard work and perseverance I made it to a position that I am proud of and can support my family quite well. Had I done what my friends from high school had done (gone to college paid for by their parents and lived at home while they did it) I may not be where I am now. On the other hand I may have become an executive at my current employer by this time.
I guess the point I trying to make is that I was not poisoned by higher education, and never expected anything to be handed to me. I worked for everything I have, and now these idiots think they deserve something for nothing, I don't think so!
Nice to hear your story, BenB. A success story.
Now, we have a bunch of whiners who believed they are privledged and the nation owes them something....whick brings me to suggest something I don't necessarily agree, but since we have lost the educational battle to liberals and the minds of the young, it may be the only avenue available to teach self discipline, self worth and personal responsibility......
Maybe serving your country shouldn't be all volunteer......
-
I guess the point I trying to make is that I was not poisoned by higher education, and never expected anything to be handed to me. I worked for everything I have, and now these idiots think they deserve something for nothing, I don't think so!
Well, no. These idiots paid upwards of $100K, easy, for their beloved Wymyn's Studies degrees. So they paid what they think is the cover charge to a job and a successful career (two different things as your story so nobly points out), and now they are owed that two-drink minimum, with a starting job of about $75-100K yet with no marketable skills other than getting on the nanny government gravy train. They have no clue, and obviously didn't buy one in college, either.
I also find it interesting you talk of you wanting to be independent. The first thing you did was join the Air Force, becoming responsible for yourself -- big time. The penalties for crimes at school are completely different from the penalties for crimes in the military. But many who go to college only go because they are expected to, that it's their cover charge to a better life than their parents (the ol' American dream). Well now, for the first time in many years, children today can expect a lower standard of living than their parents. So that has them a bit miffed. These kids have been protected from the harsh realities of life, growing up in a place where everybody gets a trophy, where competition is bad, where learning is to the lowest common intellect. So they have been a social engineering experiment started by Dr. Spock that has come to poltically correct fruition. They have not been allowed to fail -- until now. And they find that rightfully frightening. But, like the morons they are, they have no idea at whom they should be angry, falling for the easy score with 'tax the rich'. (If I can't be successful, neither can you!) They have never been independent in their well-controlled, music, soccer, baseball, dancing, martial arts lives. They are so stupid as to actually think moving out of the house and going to college (on mommy's and daddy's family monies) makes them independent. They think, like so many think, independence is something you can buy, not something you earn.
-
Maybe serving your country shouldn't be all volunteer......
Well Don, I almost agree with you, almost. The first thing that the future generations need is the desire to be independent, i.e. earning their own way in life, without mommy and daddy helping out. My answer to that was the military. But in a way, I was not as independent as I would have liked to think. I took a guaranteed job. By that I mean I knew I could get in (smart and healthy enough) and I also knew I would do well (driven), but on the other side of that coin, I also knew it was a regular paycheck for 4 years. Some of today's youth are not smart or healthy enough and I have yet to see many that are driven.
These idiots paid upwards of $100K, easy, for their beloved Wymyn's Studies degrees.
RickZ.. mostly it was mommy and daddy and the US taxpayer that paid for most of these idiots. Granted there are a few that are driven enough to to make their own way, but I believe that these individuals are also driven enough to get that job. It's the ones that go because they were told that it is the easy ticket to wealth, or were told by mommy and daddy that you are going to college regardless, that took the easy classes ( wymyns studies) and barely passed that are angry. They are also the ones that got a trophy for "Participating" and in the competitions where we kept score in our generation, they didn't. They are the "we are all equal" generation, and are now finding that in the real world that they are not!
-
They are so stupid as to actually think moving out of the house and going to college (on mommy's and daddy's family monies) makes them independent. They think, like so many think, independence is something you can buy, not something you earn.
That is so true it bears repeating.
The whole time they're at college, the majority are still protected, cocooned among their peers in a rigidly-controlled, "thou shalt not cause offense", milieu, enforced by older, just as immature "professionals". They think, because they're vigorously encouraged to rejected Mommy's and Daddy's "indoctrination", that they're now free-thinkers, failing to ken they've not been given the tools to grow up but to grow left.
-
The high school near me has 4500 students. They have two levels of honor roll. The first is 4.0 GPA or higher students, the second is 3.0 or higher students.
(They used to have several levels of honor rolls but consolidated them into 2).
I took the time to count the names from last spring's total honor roll. Half the students are on the honor roll.
That seems odd to me.
I know one 9th grader's homework for the Constitution unit was to write a caption for a cartoon of Washington and another founding father.
Their summer reading requirements includes books I'd be embarrassed to read! If the books were movies they'd easily be "R" rated. Several parents ran to get on the board last year with the subject of those books as their platform. They lost because most parents felt that the teachers know what kids should be reading, not parents!
-
If I'm not mistaken, the high schools had about a week to create a new graduation project before the end of school last year. There really was not sufficient time for public input. Even if there were, I'm not so sure that inviting input on curriculum matters is a good idea. Let's leave it to the professionals.
See that? This came from my locality, but is going on everywhere. The schools and "the involved" are constantly whining about the lack of parental participation, and then, this is the attitude parents are faced with when they want an input-opportunity. I don't believe the curriculum is a throw-away item; it's THE purpose of schools.
-
Same here, Pan. I voted against every incumbant on the school board last year. One was quoted as saying the years they had parental input on reading lists were "disasters". The others all had similar comments on their websites to the effect that teachers know what kids need. One parental suppporter quoted on somebody's site said he had "no problem" with the reading list. His son had read the books and it was all fine. Well, shoot if you don't have a problem with your kid reading about a 16 year old's first sexual encounter in telling detail I guess the rest of us should rest easy, huh? ::gaah::
-
The whole time they're at college, the majority are still protected, cocooned among their peers in a rigidly-controlled, "thou shalt not cause offense", milieu, enforced by older, just as immature "professionals".
On top of that, I feel quite certain they've been praised, in ways seen and unseen, to toe the party line as taught by union hacks. (That is not to say all teachers are union hacks, but you know the ones who are [and Randi Weingarten is one that immediately springs to mind]). Honestly, I can't imagine going to school today facing the magnitude of the indoctrination and come out halfway normal. Standing up to the whole global warming climate change nonsense must be tough, a conceptual scam which should be relegated to a course on The History of Fraudulent Science, for both history and science majors. Sort of like The Donation of Constantine. It was so real . . . , until it wasn't.
My freshman year in college was the tail end of Vietnam, and we had two vets (Army and Air Force) (the Army guy had bdeen in 'Nam) on my floor, then two below was another Air Force guy who had been in 'Nam. All on the GI Bill and all with a definite opinion of the military, little of it good. One guy, an AF AP, put up with a lot of chickensh*t while on duty in England. One of his fellow AP's committed suicide on post one night with a .45 and was quite messy as described by my dormmate who found his friend. Quite naturally, I gave these guys leeway in their opinions because they were based upon personal experience. They did not hate America. They hated the Vietnam War.
And quite honestly, so did I, but not for anti-war reasons. I was against the war because I somehow realized at the ripe old age of 11-12 that something was f*cked up over there. I remember the weekly body counts on the national news at dinnertime. It was always something like 'this week, 254 US soldiers lost their lives while 10,500 enemy were killed'. Even in my tiny and unformed mind, the math didn't add up. I knew that if we were killing that many and losing only those few, then we should be rolling, albeit bloodily, along; Grant is a good example of success while employed in a war of attrition (at least in this one, Americans were not on both sides, except for Kerry and such ilk). As I grew older, I learned about the idea that Vietnam was a 9 to 5 war, that Charlie owned the night. Today, that wouldn't be the case as our military has gone big-time for small fire teams of extremely qualified men (no women in the super elite units that I know of). We own the night. Stealth technology has seen to that. No longer could a jungle canopy provide cover for a Ho Chi Minh trail.
I was always pro-war, if you will. I understood the necessity, at times, of shedding blood to do the right thing. WWII was still fresh in grade school; my parents being of that generation didn't hurt none, either. I read/looked at an article in Life (or the other mag) concerning death camps with, that I specifically remember, photos of Jewesses lining up naked in Treblinka for that final gauntlet into the showers. One couldn't stop the Nazis without using massive and lethal force. Communism was just as bad, but somehow stayed localized in its conflict of ideologies. So I understood the Holocaust, even though I didn't learn that formal name until much later (I think it might have been that tv miniseries from the late '70's, with Michael Moriarity called, appropriately, The Holocaust; much later I learned the name Shoah). So I was not against the Vietnam War on some sort of peacenik principles but rather because we weren't fighting to win. How many sitting Congresspersons at the time who were critical of the War had ever had one iota of military training, even if just military history? And yet they knew better than generals often learned on the taxpayer dime. Congress didn't throw good money after bad but rather ignored those whom they (collectively and as a part of Government) had educated at taxpayer cost to provide just such advice. The one thing Gulf War I retaught sentient Americans is that if we are going to go to war, build it up, take the enemy out with overwhelming force, then think about rebuilding; Operation Iraqi Freedom had a different mindset from the outset.
I'm not saying the US is perfect, but this Country has been a force for good more than a force for evil. We have freed god knows how many. We have, until now, passed along the legacy of those who wrote of secular Government and wrote its rules and procedures in a document called the Constitution. Some of our former enemies are our greatest success stories in the real 'regime change' department: Germany and Japan. I had hoped that maybe Iraq could at least be a nominal friend in the region, but I think that is not going to happen. (I was extremely disappointed by the Iraqis who were given their freedom on a silver platter after decades of living under the tyrannical rule of the al-Tikriti clan.) I had never held much hope for Afghanistan, and I thought early on and I still think today that we did not destroy enough, kill enough to make a long term difference. Those who live there see who will last, who the strong horse will be, and those strong horses have shari'a as their guide. Can't blame 'em, but we tried. Yet with Iraq I had hoped for a little more gratitude, yes gratitude. We were never fighting the Iraqi people, took great pains at enormous cost to spare them and they're like, 'Eh, what have you done for me lately?'
-
Maybe serving your country shouldn't be all volunteer......
Well Don, I almost agree with you, almost. The first thing that the future generations need is the desire to be independent, i.e. earning their own way in life, without mommy and daddy helping out. My answer to that was the military. But in a way, I was not as independent as I would have liked to think. I took a guaranteed job. By that I mean I knew I could get in (smart and healthy enough) and I also knew I would do well (driven), but on the other side of that coin, I also knew it was a regular paycheck for 4 years. Some of today's youth are not smart or healthy enough and I have yet to see many that are driven.
These idiots paid upwards of $100K, easy, for their beloved Wymyn's Studies degrees.
RickZ.. mostly it was mommy and daddy and the US taxpayer that paid for most of these idiots. Granted there are a few that are driven enough to to make their own way, but I believe that these individuals are also driven enough to get that job. It's the ones that go because they were told that it is the easy ticket to wealth, or were told by mommy and daddy that you are going to college regardless, that took the easy classes ( wymyns studies) and barely passed that are angry. They are also the ones that got a trophy for "Participating" and in the competitions where we kept score in our generation, they didn't. They are the "we are all equal" generation, and are now finding that in the real world that they are not!
I want an all volunteer military.....and why I prefaced my comment. Sometimes, to earn your independence, you first must learn what it is. Those protesting certainly do not understand, it is skewed to allow them to be dependant. I certainly do not want the military to become some sort of nanny state and even my mentioning serving to be non volunteer gave me the feeling I'm no better than the liberal wanting gov't to take care of all...... But I also know anyone who serves comes away with a better understanding of freedom and independence.
I offer as just a thought.
-
I think I started to notice changes about 20-25 years ago.
When my husband and I were looking for our first home the real estate agents weren't calling them starter homes any more. We bought a small house in a post WWII neighborhood. There were people still living there that had raised their families there from the time the homes were built. We've long since moved and many of the houses have given way to McMansions. God bless you if you have the money but it's the attitude of these new home buyers that rubs me the wrong way. I'm glad I don't live in that neighborhood any more. (We thought about a remodel but decided to move instead--I wanted to stay married hahaha!)
When we looked for the next home we noticed an interesting thing--new developments in our price range were building homes that gave the illusion of McMansions but once you got inside you realized they weren't all that bigger than what we had. My husband and I talked a lot about it at the time. It seemed our generation wanted to have the same standard of living they'd left at their parent's home. Where their parents may have worked for 20 years or more to get to that point (as did my dad and my father-in-law) these folks didn't want to work for it.
Then as these new huge houses were going up in our old neighborhood we wondered how could these people our age afford these things? We discovered many were living on credit cards or their parents/grandparents generosity OR assuming that someday they would sell for a huge gain and pay off all their debt and move to Florida.
To me this all symptoms of the same attitude started way back in pre-pre K! You get a sticker for showing up. You get a job for having a degree. You get the house you want because it's the next thing on your list.
-
I think I started to notice changes about 20-25 years ago.
When my husband and I were looking for our first home the real estate agents weren't calling them starter homes any more. We bought a small house in a post WWII neighborhood. There were people still living there that had raised their families there from the time the homes were built. We've long since moved and many of the houses have given way to McMansions. God bless you if you have the money but it's the attitude of these new home buyers that rubs me the wrong way. I'm glad I don't live in that neighborhood any more. (We thought about a remodel but decided to move instead--I wanted to stay married hahaha!)
When we looked for the next home we noticed an interesting thing--new developments in our price range were building homes that gave the illusion of McMansions but once you got inside you realized they weren't all that bigger than what we had. My husband and I talked a lot about it at the time. It seemed our generation wanted to have the same standard of living they'd left at their parent's home. Where their parents may have worked for 20 years or more to get to that point (as did my dad and my father-in-law) these folks didn't want to work for it.
Then as these new huge houses were going up in our old neighborhood we wondered how could these people our age afford these things? We discovered many were living on credit cards or their parents/grandparents generosity OR assuming that someday they would sell for a huge gain and pay off all their debt and move to Florida.
To me this all symptoms of the same attitude started way back in pre-pre K! You get a sticker for showing up. You get a job for having a degree. You get the house you want because it's the next thing on your list.
yea....Home ownership went from a privledge to a right. Let's create a loan program so everyone can own a home.
-
yea....Home ownership went from a privilege to a right. Let's create a loan program so everyone can own a home.
But lets not regulate it so anyone (regardless of ability to repay) can get one.
-
yea....Home ownership went from a privilege to a right. Let's create a loan program so everyone can own a home.
But lets not regulate it so anyone (regardless of ability to repay) can get one.
In a way, that was the regulation, supported by quota-counts.
-
yea....Home ownership went from a privilege to a right. Let's create a loan program so everyone can own a home.
But lets not regulate it so anyone (regardless of ability to repay) can get one.
Funny how it works. Pass laws encouraging lending to those who really can't pay it back, create a housing crisis, pass laws which creates a credit crunch, people can't get refi's, pass laws to lower interest rates.....finallllllyyyyy....Just give them the damn house.
-
.....finallllllyyyyy....Just give them the damn house.
i think there's some kind of belief that owning a house makes one a responsible, productive person. So if you give people a house then --voila! --they become producers.
I think it works the other way. You become responsible and productive so you can own property.
-
.....finallllllyyyyy....Just give them the damn house.
i think there's some kind of belief that owning a house makes one a responsible, productive person. So if you give people a house then --voila! --they become producers.
I think it works the other way. You become responsible and productive so you can own property.
Cargo-cult mentality.
-
i think there's some kind of belief that owning a house makes one a responsible, productive person. So if you give people a house then --voila! --they become producers.
I don't know about you but it's been my experience that anything someone has worked hard themselves to purchase seems to be better taken care of than anything that has been given to them, i.e. the kid next door was given a nice BMW from his dad, was thrashed in about 3 weeks, but the Kia he bought himself has stayed immaculate for 3 years now.
-
i think there's some kind of belief that owning a house makes one a responsible, productive person. So if you give people a house then --voila! --they become producers.
I don't know about you but it's been my experience that anything someone has worked hard themselves to purchase seems to be better taken care of than anything that has been given to them, i.e. the kid next door was given a nice BMW from his dad, was thrashed in about 3 weeks, but the Kia he bought himself has stayed immaculate for 3 years now.
seems to always work that way doesn't it?