'An Appalling Report'

[adamdavid80]

Not a problem in regard to acquisition of knowledge and skills of the intellect.

The classroom is also a place where one learns social skills broader than the family.

This last point is essential.  Interaction with others - how to negotiate, how to publicly speak and behave - these seemingly innocuous, tiny things that happen simply by existing in a public environment, they're lost with home schooling.

Plus, home schooling is predominantly in this country done by families who don't want their children exposed to the sciences/to learn the theory of evolution.  That's a shame.  These people might feel expert in Bible Study, but to have no respect for science, to not provide your child with a basic understanding beyond, "Gravity exists because God wants it to"?  That's a mite bit scary.  If you ever see the documentary "Jesus Camp", this is EXACTLY what goes on.

[Florestan]

This last point is essential.  Interaction with others - how to negotiate, how to publicly speak and behave - these seemingly innocuous, tiny things that happen simply by existing in a public environment, they're lost with home schooling.

In pre-modern times there were no public schools. Education meant either home-schooling or privately operated schools. And yet the social skills of the educated people were no worse than today. Actually, the social marks of an educated person in those times --- the arts of conversation, writing letters and mastering the good manners --- are all but lost in our times.

[PSmith08]

In pre-modern times there were no public schools. Education meant either home-schooling or privately operated schools. And yet the social skills of the educated people were no worse than today. Actually, the social marks of an educated person in those times --- the arts of conversation, writing letters and mastering the good manners --- are all but lost in our times.

Well, even in an age when most people weren't going to school very long, if at all, there were plenty of well-educated bores and boors. The numbers were much smaller, of course, if only because most people were toiling in fields, in the armed forces, or losing various appendages to various industrial machines.

Who has time for a bon mot when you've got a hand caught in a loom or a thresher? Not I, sir. Not I.

[adamdavid80]

In pre-modern times there were no public schools. Education meant either home-schooling or privately operated schools. And yet the social skills of the educated people were no worse than today. Actually, the social marks of an educated person in those times --- the arts of conversation, writing letters and mastering the good manners --- are all but lost in our times.

But you're also talking about pre-Industrial Revolution era, yes?  With the advent of major industry and urban life, the ned for social interaction and skills is imperative.  plus, the larger issue of having an experts perspective on sciences, art, history, etc.  Your parents will only know so much on a given subject.  The creative process of teaching (which, yes, is slowly dyign out by formatted national class requiremtns, no child left behind, etc)

educaton and knowledge are the most sacred things in the world, far as I'm concerned.

[Florestan]

Well, even in an age when most people weren't going to school very long, if at all, there were plenty of well-educated bores and boors.

That's true. Just as there are plenty now. Nothing has changed in this respect.

Your parents will only know so much on a given subject. 

Correct. But Eric's question, the way I understood it, was not about home-schooling by parents, but about schooling at home with private teachers --- a different matter altogether. I reiterate that, if a child's family has the money and the willingness to so educate her / him, I see no problem with that.

For instance, this is how Felix Mendelssohn received his entire pre-University education; still, judging by all contemporary testimonies, he didn't lack any social skill, on the contrary, he was a perfect gentleman.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Florestan,

But Eric's question, the way I understood it, was not about home-schooling by parents, but about schooling at home with private teachers --- a different matter altogether

Yes, private teachers; I was very clear about that.

Getting back to something you wrote earlier:

The real issue is, IMHO, the prevailing educational philosophy which results not in too many people being educated but, on the contrary, in too many people not being educated. (I'm talking about people who do go to high-schools and colleges, mind you!).

A few questions:

1. You seem to have a lot of faith in the intellectual potential of most people. Is that correct ?

2. What validity does the concept of  g  and aptitude tests have for you ?

3. If a person is to acquire knowledge and enhance their understanding of the world isn´t it preferable that  most  do it outside the halls of academe ?

4. Correct me if I am wrong but isn´t the college experience mostly about reading books and analyzing their content. And then applying those ideas and principles and determining their effectiveness ?

[karlhenning]

3. If a person is to acquire knowledge and enhance their understanding of the world isn´t it preferable that  most  do it outside the halls of academe ?

Why, exactly, Eric?  Why should a preference break either way?

You seem to have a lot of prejudice against academia. Is that correct?

[Florestan]

1. You seem to have a lot of faith in the intellectual potential of most people. Is that correct ?

The only thing I have faith in is God. Everything else is debatable.

Now, based on my experience, I would say that most people, given the opportunity, have the intellectual potential to learn reading, writing and arithmetics.

If by "intellectual potential" you mean interest in, and ability to understand, specific subjects such as Literature and Foreign Languages, History, Geography, Sciences, Philosophy etc --- I can't say "most" or "few". 
What I can say is that, given proper opportunity --- and this includes a lot of variables, like, for instance, family environment, school environment, school facilities quality, teachers' committment and methods, social image of education and educated people, etc etc etc --- it is possible (a) to arouse a child's interest in pursuing higher education and (b) to develop in the process her / his intellectual abilities.

2. What validity does the concept of  g  and aptitude tests have for you ?

Aptitude tests may have an orientative validity but not an absolute one. I personally know people who graduated as engineers and whose intellectual interests outside their trade goes no further than reading tabloids and watching football matches. Conversely, I personally know people who never completed their high-school education and with which I can discuss topics such as moon eclipses, folk songs or the hydromechanics of battle ships.

3. If a person is to acquire knowledge and enhance their understanding of the world isn´t it preferable that  most  do it outside the halls of academe ?

Each person is unique and, if interested, will eventually find the educational medium most suited to her / his personality. Some people are incomfortable with the idea of classrooms, assignments and tests. Some others are perfectly fine and happy in an academical environment. Some learn for their pure pleasure and out of pure intellectual curiosity. Some others learn with a career in their mind. Some are prone to individual, solitary study. Some others derive pleasure and profit from intellectual intercourse with their mates. Etc etc etc.

There is no single, universal and success-guaranteed educational system and trying to enforce such a Procustean measure on the society is always going to have effects contrary to those intended.

The "halls of academe" are as legitimate and honorable places of education as the open fields and mountains under a summer starry night.

Now, there are no small numbers of philosophers, artists and scientists who never made it past high-school, if this at all. But they were either geniuses or at least very gifted intellectually. Ordinary people, though, need guidance in their learning and education.

4. Correct me if I am wrong but isn´t the college experience mostly about reading books and analyzing their content. And then applying those ideas and principles and determining their effectiveness ?

If that was your experience, then you certainly went to the wrong college, I mean, a college not suitable for your personality.

[adamdavid80]

Important article, and more or less on topic...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/opinion/13kristof.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Homo Aestheticus]

Important article, and more or less on topic...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/opinion/13kristof.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Kristof writes:

"Let's pick up where we left off in the 1970s and mount a national campaign to make high-school graduation truly universal, and to make a college education routine..."

This is exactly the kind of educational policy that Charles Murray finds foolish, cruel, and counter-productive.

[karlhenning]

So much the worse for Charles Murray.

[karlhenning]

Soeaking of "foolish and counter-productive" . . . .

[Homo Aestheticus]

Florestan,

The only thing I have faith in is God. Everything else is debatable.

I too have faith in the existence of benevolent supernatural being... 

Some very sensible comments throughout. Thanks.

[Homo Aestheticus]

So much the worse for Charles Murray.

Karl,

Here is a very good defense and summary of what Charles Murray is saying by a commentator named William Asher.

Charles Murray is talking about a rational and realistic approach to education utilizing what we now know about variations in human traits governed by genetics. A child born with an IQ of 90 cannot be a brain surgeon, but he can be a janitor, mechanic, farmer, landscaper, etc, etc. Murray is not saying that one's specific station in life is determined by their intellectual capacity. No reasonable person can possibly read Murray this way.

As for writing kids off ... well, if you spend decades pretending that education is everything and constantly  degrade  non-degreed occupations then you wind up with a social scenario where janitors, mechanics, farmers, landscapers, etc are worthless, as human beings. It is not Murray who is writing off kids for having only the capacity of being janitors and framers, it is the sorts occupying our educational establishment.

I run and operate my own yacht detailing business with my brother, no employees. It is actually a very good business and I really enjoy what I do. I can attest that attaining respectability in social situations is something that I have to achieve but would be a default position if I were in a "professional" occupation. Why are people, mostly men, in trades and service professions socially "written off".

It's this rank elitism that so many of us loathe.

Instead of pretending like every child ever born is a brain surgeon, we can actually help those with a capacity of becoming nothing more than a janitor, farmer, landscaper, mechanic etc to live happy and socially productive lives.

Murray is dangerous to the sorts here because his thesis undermines the notion of education uber alles. Unfortunately, for you, Murray is doing nothing more than exposing the narcissistic and grandiose claims of the education establishment. There are many paths to living a happy, socially productive and fulfilling life, and many of them only pass tangentially through formal education.

[Joe_Campbell]

Eric, this isn't meant as a criticism, because I find nothing wrong with substantiating one's point of view with an 'expert' in a given field. However, it is intellectually invigorating to exercise the art of rebuttal or discussion. Perhaps you wouldn't have such an inferiority complex if you had faith in your own ability to reason? This only comes with practice.

Just a thought.

[adamdavid80]

Karl,

Here is a very good defense and summary of what Charles Murray is saying by a commentator named William Asher.

Charles Murray is talking about a rational and realistic approach to education utilizing what we now know about variations in human traits governed by genetics. A child born with an IQ of 90 cannot be a brain surgeon, but he can be a janitor, mechanic, farmer, landscaper, etc, etc. Murray is not saying that one's specific station in life is determined by their intellectual capacity. No reasonable person can possibly read Murray this way.

As for writing kids off ... well, if you spend decades pretending that education is everything and constantly  degrade  non-degreed occupations then you wind up with a social scenario where janitors, mechanics, farmers, landscapers, etc are worthless, as human beings. It is not Murray who is writing off kids for having only the capacity of being janitors and framers, it is the sorts occupying our educational establishment.

I run and operate my own yacht detailing business with my brother, no employees. It is actually a very good business and I really enjoy what I do. I can attest that attaining respectability in social situations is something that I have to achieve but would be a default position if I were in a "professional" occupation. Why are people, mostly men, in trades and service professions socially "written off".

It's this rank elitism that so many of us loathe.

Instead of pretending like every child ever born is a brain surgeon, we can actually help those with a capacity of becoming nothing more than a janitor, farmer, landscaper, mechanic etc to live happy and socially productive lives.

Murray is dangerous to the sorts here because his thesis undermines the notion of education uber alles. Unfortunately, for you, Murray is doing nothing more than exposing the narcissistic and grandiose claims of the education establishment. There are many paths to living a happy, socially productive and fulfilling life, and many of them only pass tangentially through formal education.

Who's pretending that every child has the potential to be a brain surgeon?  The argument is, every child has potential.  Let's say within the realm of drawing: someone may not have an all-around ability, but mgiht have an incredible sense of depth perception, or color, or layout.  But the only way anyone is ever going to find out is if the opportunity is given.

George W Bush himself would call you out for these statements.  "The soft bigotry of low expectations".  Also, it's worth noting that a childs parents income directly links in to tapping their potential.  If the parents can't afford to buy the children supplies, or books, or tutors, who can?  Government programs and incentives.  Overall, it's an investment in the countrys future.  Problem is, it's not something where you "see" short-term results.  But long-term?  Worth every penny.  Why not read the Kristof article...

[karlhenning]

There are many paths to living a happy, socially productive and fulfilling life, and many of them only pass tangentially through formal education.

Strawman, of course.  A pity you chose it for a curtain line, Eric 

[Florestan]

The Kristof article, while making some valid points, is a perfect embodiment of the (historically failed) Enlightenment optimism vis-a-vis the power of education to make the world a better place. It is also curiously self-contradictory: if, by 1970, US was far ahead of the rest of the world in education, this implies logically that US population was highly educated and the American society was mostly composed of enlightened persons who should have had the natural tendency to preserve this trend. But instead we have educational stagnation and even regress! It doesn't make any sense...

...unless, of course, we take into account that (a) quantity is not the same as quality and (b) a wrong kind of education can be more harmful to persons, and dangerous to society as a whole, than no education at all.

[Florestan]

If the parents can't afford to buy the children supplies, or books, or tutors, who can?  Government programs and incentives. 

Or private foundations. Or community-based, non-governmental foundations. Or religious communities. Or... or... or...

Government is only one of a myriad knots in the society's network.

[karlhenning]

The Kristof article, while making some valid points, is a perfect embodiment of the (historically failed) Enlightenment optimism vis-a-vis the power of education to make the world a better place. It is also curiously self-contradictory: if, by 1970, US was far ahead of the rest of the world in education, this implies logically that US population was highly educated and the American society was mostly composed of enlightened persons who should have had the natural tendency to preserve this trend. But instead we have educational stagnation and even regress! It doesn't make any sense...

To claim that the US might be "far ahead of the rest of the world in education" invites a skepticism similar to the "greatest composers" discussion, related to the nature (and narrow scope) of the criteria.

Not all that unrelatedly, the decline in education in the US seems to me in large part to result from curiously narrow (and in certain misapplied ways, 'scientific') notions of the nature of education.

OTOH, and notwithstanding the genuine ill effects of poor education, this thread demonstrates in part what a dead end is disdain for the education one does not have.  (Even the self-taught can have a perilously poor education.)