<< Lewis Dabney on Edmund Wilson | Front Page | Misprision-house of Language >>
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Defining Literacy Down
There’s an article in the Post about the apparent resurgence of the core curriculum across the country. First, I’d have to say that I have met several faculty, students, and alumni from Oglethorpe, and I wouldn’t say that it is “little-known.” In fact, it’s the only college mentioned in the article which has a character in Aqua Teen Hunger Force named after it.
I called it “apparent” because I think the article exaggerates the extent to which the “classics” (and the “dead white male") ever disappeared from the classroom. If you’ll forgive a brief digression, I was glad to see that Ursinus College is teaching the Epic of Gilgamesh alongside Genesis, because I have reliable reports that a public high school in Georgia glued, on order from the principal, the pages of a 10th grade world literature textbook together rather than expose students to the earlier flood myth. (I’m guessing at the likely motivation here, though it could have been a clever ploy to get more students to read Gilgamesh than would ever have done so normally.)
J. Scott Lee is quoted as saying that more colleges now require core classic courses than they did in the 70s. I’m going to assign the fifth and sixth books of the Republic in my freshman writing class this semester, and I have taught the Symposium, most of Rhetoric, and several other core-friendly works in such classes in the past. I mention this in part because I wanted to point out that the Briggs report on literature in the composition classroom, sponsored by the ALSC, gratuitously slurs the University of Florida writing program (11) where I assigned these works (alongside--shock! horror!--other media).
Making the decision to have a core curriculum and then deciding on what exactly will be taught in it are both difficult tasks. Four years of mandatory philosophy in the high school curriculum would go a long way towards solving the problems of coverage and increasing the likelihood of self-selection in similar (and optional) classes at the college level. Substantial exposure to philosophy is a reliable indicator of the quality of a high school education, and it seems to be completely absent from many curricula, particularly in the public system. (It was absent in mine in North Carolina. A philosophy professor at UNC-Wilmington immediately assumed that I had gone to private school because I showed some familiarity with the subject as a freshman.) Philosophy is the most practical of all subjects.
Comments
The comment from Professor Armstrong in the article--it contrasts forcing students into certain classes to allowing them to choose their classes--says a lot about how far two generations of teachers abandoned their role as educators. It sounds as if requiring students to study certain few things is the equivalent of oppression.
That’s a bit harsh, given the evidence, isn’t it? Requirements to study certain things can be oppressive, depending on what those things are and how they are to be taught.
Especially when the requirements to study certain things amount to forbidding students to study certain other things.
I interpreted Armstrong’s comment as an administrator’s observation of what makes the university as a business run smoothly.* Speaking in terms of basic classroom management, student motivation, and instructor job satisfaction, yes, letting students choose what they want to take can be viewed as a good idea. I didn’t read it as any kind of parroting of hooks or Freire.
Mark, it seems as though you’re assuming that students, if offered a choice, would not choose to take “dead white male"-heavy courses. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. Please correct me if you weren’t assuming such, though. I’d appreciate it if you’d clarify what’s at issue; is it the act of requiring (in which case a school could also require a feminist theory course, an African American history course, etc. and it’d be no different), or students’ exposure to DWM “great books”?
*I certainly see that this might have been your point.
Oppressive? Defining oppression down.
I found myself scratching my head a bit at this post, partly sharing the confusion expressed by some of the readers above.
But here’s where I drew blood, or at least left myself with a bad scar:
Four years of mandatory philosophy in the high school curriculum would go a long way towards solving the problems of coverage and increasing the likelihood of self-selection in similar (and optional) classes at the college level.
Does this mean anything other than that if you teach a lot of something in high school, you (may) be able to teach higher levels of the stuff in college? If that’s the case, I’ll buy it. And put my money on foreign languages and history, with the biological sciences closing in fast.
Substantial exposure to philosophy is a reliable indicator of the quality of a high school education, and it seems to be completely absent from many curricula, particularly in the public system.
Hence, public schools are reliably of low quality. QED. This may be true, but I find it hard to believe that a commitment to philosophy is anything other than cultural side effect. Let’s just say that substantial exposure to philosophy is a reliable indicator of one’s having gone to a private school.
And finally:
Philosophy is the most practical of all subjects.
...as our discussions of theory and Wittgenstein have so amply shown. The practicality of philosophy seems to me to be one of the ways that humanities professors like to “save” and support their passions—but do so by buying into language of relevance and applicability. It’s akin to English teachers who say that reading books makes you more ethically sensitive and a better writer to boot. (Or books that promise heightened management skills by reading Machiavelli.)
As your own closing paragraph clearly indicates, however, there is only one way in which studying philosophy is reliably practical. It makes it much easier for you to study more philosophy.
And there’s nothing wrong with that at all.
The final line is a riff on a quotation attributed to Chemnitz, with “theology” being the magic word.
Public schools which teach philosophy (there are some) are better than those which do not. It’s a more practical subject than the ephemeral “Introduction to MS Office”
Reading books is necessary but not sufficient for becoming a better writer. And years of mandatory philosophy would give students the conceptual vocabulary to discuss the things that core curriculum advocates worry are disappearing.
I’ve run into over the years several folks who argue that federal education spending can be drastically reduced--if not abolished--and teachers’ salaries raised and children’s education improved simply by cutting out extraneous programs: athletics, computers, and such. Just some great books, paper, and pencils is all that’s needed, they say. It’s a peculiar kind of imaginary nostalgia--think “Nestor"--and my proposal addresses the symptom.
One last thing. Would you mind naming names on your source for the “glued Gilgamesh” story. It has a whiff of urban legend about it.
Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind, founder of the creationist theme park, Dinosaur Adventure Land, tells a similar tale, but in his version, the Georgia principal was gluing together pages on evolution. Georgia Citizens for Integrity in Science Education says the pages were cut out (10 years ago). And the Nation Center for Science Education says that it was a Georgia superintendent, sealing pages in a physics textbook that talked about the Big Bang.
Sure, I wouldn’t put anything outside the long reach of zealotry. But give me some data before I start sharing the story. At least there’s one thing upon which all the versions agree: Georgia sucks. (I kid. I kid.)
I had two students from the same high school report it to me as direct witnesses. I haven’t verified it beyond that, but it is an action item.
Furthemore, the specificity of the Gilgamesh reference makes me doubt it was fabricated.
<<That’s a bit harsh, given the evidence, isn’t it? Requirements to study certain things can be oppressive, depending on what those things are and how they are to be taught. By Jonathan on 09/06/05 at 02:11 PM | Permanent link to this comment
Especially when the requirements to study certain things amount to forbidding students to study certain other things. By David Moles on 09/06/05 at 02:40 PM | Permanent link to this comment>>
In that case life itself is oppressive. Even when we choose by ourselves, the choices me make are at the expense of those possibilities we rejected.
The thread cut off half my response. Here is the complete post:
<<The comment from Professor Armstrong in the article--it contrasts forcing students into certain classes to allowing them to choose their classes--says a lot about how far two generations of teachers abandoned their role as educators. It sounds as if requiring students to study certain few things is the equivalent of oppression.
By mark on 09/06/05 at 02:07 PM | Permanent link to this comment
That’s a bit harsh, given the evidence, isn’t it? Requirements to study certain things can be oppressive, depending on what those things are and how they are to be taught. By Jonathan on 09/06/05 at 02:11 PM | Permanent link to this comment
Especially when the requirements to study certain things amount to forbidding students to study certain other things. By David Moles on 09/06/05 at 02:40 PM | Permanent link to this comment>>
In that case life itself is oppressive. Even when we choose by ourselves, the choices me make are at the expense of those possibilities we rejected.
The thread is still cutting off comments? Has anyone else had the same experience?
Jartran--I’m not sure what the problem is, but you can email me your full comment and I can edit the partial ones above if it still doesn’t work for you.