There have been some articles coming out lately that challenge our ideas about what college education, or getting into it, means. The Atlantic Monthly wants you to know that at least one college has opted out of the US News and World Report college rankings and find themselves better for it.
Then there's Malcolm Gladwell who has made it his one man job to deconstruct our ideas about such things. His latest effort discounts the aura of the Ivies as creators of successful people, but this article wants to make sure we are informed about "The Talent Myth" and god forbid his readers bow to tradition by valuing the SAT. The problem for Gladwell and all of us is that he leaves us with two things that haven't been debunked. One is hard work, and I'm fine with that, but the other, integral to his explication of the Ivies seems to be that some people just relate to others better or just are more successful and that troubles me.
But while we'll here for celebrity comment (and I will have another one by this guy in a minute) Orson Scott Card thinks high schools are bad because we're teaching too much math .
9 comments:
I'm not entirely sure what your beef with the article is. It certainly is troubling to think that those of us who can relate to people more skillfully tend to become more successful. I don't think that because a thought is troubling makes it less true. Attractive people tend to make more money, have more sex, and are generally thought better of than less attractive. People who are charismatic tend to get further as well. How different would Richard Feynman's life had been if he was merely intelligent and not intelligent and charismatic. On the other hand, what if he was merely charismatic but lacked the intelligence needed to develop atomic energy?
Troubling thought.
The anti-math argument is the kind of thing I would expect from a Mormon.
Yes. And I'll tell you that high schools are bad for entirely different reasons than "too much math."
I think its also interesting the the writer, while downplaying the need for learning higher math, is very concerned about teaching proper grammar. I have a question for Card: When has knowing the difference between "lay" and "lie" allowed an individual to advance in life or held them back? This linguistic throwback to a Germanic language's inflectioned past is only criticized for incorrect use by english professors and editors (no offense Rachel). It seems to me that Card has missed the point of education. In the beginning of the article he seems to refer to education as something that should be maintained for utility only and that those who want to further their education will do so. He proposes educational freedom and in the next breath he paradoxically justifies a strict standard education. But what he really seems to be advocating is a standard education that stresses minimun societal and consumer functionality. How, exactly, will this allow a student to broaden his horizons? There are many stories of the teacher who exposed a student to something new and it changed the course of their study. Contrary to Card assertion that everything not teaching minimun functionality should be an elective, most students, regardless of level of intelligence, if not required to study something will choose not to study it. I do not use physics in everyday life, but I was required to study it in high school. Now, though I have taken the artist's path, I retain a keen interest in physics which has enriched my life in a way that knowing the difference between "lay" and "lie" could never do.
What's the difference again?
Oh, no, you're not going tag me as a grammer nazi. Haven't you heard by speech about how one of the most beautiful things about the English language is its breath and adaptability. Grammer is there to enable understanding and I believe the only major grammer mistakes are those that are so far out of the range of possibilities that there make comprehension unlikely. The wonderful thing about a language used over so much of the world is that there can be different words or grammer rules and yet we can still understand each other.
However, having said that. I found, in teaching freshman comp that grammer is important, in part, because sometimes, when people have problems it is because they do not understand what they are trying to say or understand how to go back over what they write and make it more clear. I have found this can actually affect their thinking. So there is an arguement to be made that some of grammer is learning how to speak and think in a way that makes sense, but that generally doesn't entail the kind of fanaticism that you find in grammer nazis.
Fraulein Rachel, perhaps the problems they are having with writing is a lack of proper understanding of the subject matter rather than a lack of correct grammar. I would argue that if someone had a proper understand of a given subject he could communicate that understanding to anyone who communicates through a mutual grammatic structure. But a proper understanding of the dominant standardized english is only necessary if you choose to exist and succeed within a strictly defined and exclusive community.
I would also say that grammatical errors on the order of mutual unintellegibility could arguably be defined as a new language subgroup rather than poor language skills. This is, after all, how new languages evolve.
The scholars of the Byzantine era lamented what they called vulgar Latin grammar, but now we enjoy them as Romance languages. Given events like this how do we properly define what bad grammar is? Not to mention the fact that what we are taught as grammatically correct is actually adapting a Germanic language to a Latin grammar base. This is why spoken english can vary so much from written english. When we speak, we speak with grammar that is closer to our language's Germanic origins.
The way we learn english, among other things, is a reflection of Europe's ancient Roman empirial rule.
A couple of thoughts about the article and the comments.
On Education:
I think the first question you need to ask is, “why education?” These days, education, is taken as an end unto itself and a universal good as such; truthfully that assumes an awful lot. The Greeks discovered a long time ago that basic education (let’s say up through high school) is essentially indoctrination. Now, I know “indoctrination” is a dirty word, but just give me a minute. Any society, in order to be successful in the long run, needs a way to indoctrinate new citizens. And the more complex the society, the more indoctrination is required. This isn’t a bad thing, we need it. No one ever grew up to become a dentist in complete anarchy. Ergo, education. The catchphrases we parrot at one another about, “improving prospects,” and, “leveling the playing field” represent a pleasant side effect of education, but they are surely not the primary goal of universal public education.
In that context Card’s complaints begin to gain both a greater coherence and weight. Fewer requirements at the level of specialization (lets say, for the sake of argument, everything above algebra and geometry in math) would be a good thing as would a more successful curriculum of indoctrination. When I say, “indoctrination” I’m not talking about brainwashing or undermining pluralism. I am talking about transferring the core knowledge and values of the (democratic) liberalism that allow pluralism to exist. Thus, a firm grounding in the lingua franca is vitally important as our democratic, liberal, pluralistic society runs on a framework of argument and discussion rather than attack and assassination.
As for a specific refutation of the “lie” and “lay” example that Monkey Courage brought up, let’s just say that I would certainly hire a mason who failed to differentiate a complex variable, but I might have second thoughts about someone whose resume said she knew how to “lie bricks.”
On Grammar:
I am a militant grammarian. We generally eschew the word “Nazi” for obvious reasons. Anyway, though the fluid nature of language is certainly fascinating and to take a hand in its adaptability is no doubt an empowering part of what you English major types keep calling, “the human experience,” I have kind of a problem with your formulation above. Namely, obfuscation in the cause of evolution is insane. Unfortunately, languages splinter and evolve, but I see no reason to help along the cause of intellectual entropy. We can talk all day long (in a variety of dialects) about the beautiful multiplicity of language, but there’s a reason (Neil Stephenson, disregarded) why the Bible talks about Babel as a BAD THING.
Both you and Monkey Courage are probably right to surmise that linguistic evolution is unavoidable, but attempting to engender it seems nuts for a couple of reasons:
(a)Any sort of evolution is bigger than one person. Trying to make it happen yourself seems vaguely akin to tugging on your own ass cheeks in the hope of evolving a tail.
(b) Evolution is nice but every bit as destructive as it is creative. The obvious destructive element inherent in the type of linguistic evolution you discuss is disempowerment. Grammar makes you coherent and coherence (outside the realm of fist fights) is the absolute pre-requisite to power.
I've always had a fondness for playing devil's advocate.
That being said, I certainly believe that learning a given language well will help your success within any given society. And given the context of our discussion, the proper indoctrination and functional development of the average US citizen, Surrelevant makes a compelling argument.
However, I would go so far as to say that if minimal functionality, that is, workplace viability, were the ultimate goal of a school system, then we really wouldn't need to spend 12 years in school. I'd say we could stop at 6th grade. Or perhaps 8th. Personally, I had finished a year of Algebra by 8th grade, by 6th I had the mathematical knowledge to work a cash register as well as perform basic accounting. Truly, what more does a human need to be a cog in machine of the American economic machine? In the case of indoctrination, well, you would only need a year for the average citizen, maybe two for the more independent minded, to be indoctrinated with the most basic sense of their place in our society. Think about how long it took you to believe in Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny, or Jesus. The case for grammar can be made just as easily. Children learn language at an accelerated pace compared to adults and a vigorous grammar program would take care of that.
This is all it would take to become viable members of society. I would argue that the average 18 year old has no more than a 6th grade education, at best. Yet, he can work in a factory or a McDonalds, he believes everything George Bush says, and he can coherently speak to his co-workers and friends.
Those of us who would excel or choose to excel would move on to more demanding and optional curriculum after Junior High.
Now, I think it would be remiss of me not to point out a bit of naivete on the part of Surrelevant's point of grammar.
TO be a militant grammarian is an exercise in futility. A mutually coherant society is, quite frankly, unachievable. Allow me to explain:
1: A strict grammar indoctrination does more harm to creative thinking than you might suppose. Certainly, proper instruction in the basics of communication should occur, but I knew how to speak english before I got to school. I'm sure you did as well. And any normally functioning human can learn the basics of communication at a young age. So strict grammar indoctrination only serves to eliminate great literary and linguistic expression. How many words and phrases that we consider significant and triumphant have come from the pens of William Shakespeare and Lewis Carrol or Walt Whitman or Charles Bukowski would have existed had they adhered to a strict grammar doctrine? What about the beautiful lyrics of Beowulf or the Canterbury Tales? Those words, nearly incomprehensible the average english speaker now, have enriched our understanding of where we are and where we came from. As cultures have diverged their languages naturally changed to reflect and communicate their mutual experiences.
2: How many people in America, assuming a minimal functional education, which is what I propose the average American possesses, and is the premise of Card's education system, could actually follow the conversation that we are having? I'd argue that maximum proficiency in any language, especially english, by far a more vast and complex language than any other, would require more than just minimum education. Moreover, it requires constant maintenance and expansion, more than the average viable member of society requires, more than the average viable member of society is willing to spend time on.
3: Therefore, mutual coherence can only exist within respective societal stratum. Academics communicate affective with other academics, blue-collar workers communicate affectively with other blue-collar workers, etc. The differences are far more profound than mere mutual incomprehensibility. You could say this is the essense of class struggle.
One last thing. The Bible doesn't mention the confounding of language at the Tower of Babel as a bad thing. God confounded that languages of the people so that we couldn't cooperate, and become like gods.
"And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."
Jason mentions a few good teachers that he had in High School. I think this is a pretty important point, because it relates to the students actual desire to learn. Without a desire to learn, without the self motivation inspired by this desire, the question of which classes should be required and which should be optional becomes irrelevant.
Some kids tend to be self-motivated independant of their teachers. These will likely benefit most from secondary education. But for others (and I include myself here), the teacher can have a huge effect on their desire to learn. I imagine that we've all had that inspiring teacher who really gets you charged about their subject. For some people this can mean the difference between scraping by with a C and finding their new life calling.
So what do we do about the majority of kids who aren't self-motivated to learn in Chemistry, in Math, in English? Mandatory classes would keep them in the subjects, but that's certainly not addressing the very real dissinterest of the students.
I don't know how to get better teachers, at least not beyond vjgcd's suggestion of throwing money at the problem. I imagnine that WOULD help. Also, I'm sure that the lack of good teachers isn't the only problem with the school system. It just happens to mean alot to me. I had a particularly good one for physics/biology in 10-12. I almost went into Biology because of him.
Post a Comment