Today’s Plan
:
- Review
- Sir Ken Robinson
- Faulty Foundations
- Cicero
- Homework
Review
So far we have examined two approaches to education: the Platonic and the Isocratic. The Platonic focused on developing critical thinking. It treated each student as an individual end unto herself. It was predicated on nurturing the soul (which meant disconnecting the soul from the social forces that had tainted it, re-educating it on what it should desire in order to be happy). In terms of a curriculum, it emphasized a wide range of studies including math, astronomy, music, and dialectic (philosophical argument based on questioning in order to discover something’s essence–what it really is, what it must be. For instance: what is justice?).
The Isocratic education was skeptical of dialectical training, believing that Plato wasted too much time teaching abstract thought and not enough time teaching practical skills. In Isocrates’ world, practical skills concerned the ability to debate in public on political and legal grounds. A central component of this education was cultural and historic (often referred to as “paideia“). A goal of this cultural program was to create and reinforce a cultural identity to which all could aspire. Much of Isocrates’ educational style involved writing imitations and practicing public speaking (as opposed to Plato’s dedication to lecture and dialogue).
Sir Ken Robinson and Rose and Ogas’ “Faulty Foundations…”
First, a video.
What resonates in the video with stuff we have discussed all class?
- Why, according to Rose and Ogas, did the standardists beat the individualists in the 1940’s?
- Rose and Ogas offer three key principles of learning, introduced in a 2004 paper by Molenaar, in opposition to standardization. What are these three principles?
- What are some of the problems of implementing individualization (why do they note that it might seem “hopelessly quixotic”)?
- How do they propose to overcome these challenges?
Some quotes:
- Thus, the architecture of our modern system of higher education is predicated upon two antagonistic assumptions about the organ of learning: “Every brain is standardized” and “some brains are superior.” That irreconcilable design flaw is evident in the paradoxical demand our system imposes on its students: Be the same as everyone else, only better. To succeed in American college — and, thus, to succeed in American society — you must trade in your uniqueness to be like everyone else, while simultaneously doing everything you can to be better at the same things that everybody else is trying to do.”
- “One frequently voiced concern is that the elimination of core curricula will result in a failure to teach some essential form of humanistic skills or values, such as critical thinking, a sense of civic duty, tolerance for diverse viewpoints, or an appreciation for the arts. Some critics argue that many students need highly structured distribution requirements, either to provide necessary discipline or to expose them to new subjects that might stir them or unveil latent talents. Another common fear is that an education for individuality will increase, rather than reduce, disparities in educational opportunity, slotting wealthier students into tracks that develop humanistic or professional capacities while ensuring that lower-income students are funneled into mere job training.”
- Consider, for instance, the admirable desire to teach everyone standard critical-thinking skills. In truth, critical thinking varies depending on context, such that critical thinking in civil engineering is different from critical thinking in literary criticism is different from critical thinking in behavioral genetics. The nature of critical thinking also depends on the particular jaggedness of a thinker’s mind. Instead of settling for the illusion that we can somehow compel all minds toward some standard liberal-arts education, we should grant all students the freedom to develop the particular form of liberal-arts education that they need for their own pathway.
Cicero’s Statesman
- Note the traditional attacks on Cicero, binary between life of the mind and the life of action
- “A closer reading of Cicero, however, calls this conclusion into question, for the tension between nature and law can be shown to retain its full significance for Cicero” (356), let’s unpack the distinction between Nature and law. Can one provide a definition of justice analogous to A
- Those who deal in Nature do not have to deal with contingency. To deal with Nature, or with the individual, is to maintain more control: “The attack on philosophy by Cicero emphasizes his belief that political philosophy that abandoned its starting point, a concern with the happiness of men in cities, and replaced it with a concern for individual happiness regardless of city. This concern is irresponsible and even self-defeating if the best and happiest life requires certain political conditions for its fulfillment. Human life is necessarily social and political; the action which demonstrates the possession of virtue takes place in a city and among one’s fellow citizens.” (358)
- “Cicero introduces the question of whether politics or philosophy is the better guide to life” (356-257). In what ways can you remember being taught how to live?
- “The unqualified rejection of the city or the cave in the manner of Tubero only puts one, so to speak, into a deeper hole” (363).
- “Not an imaginary but a real city” (363). In terms of curriculum, this brings us closer to the “case study”
- What to make of Cicero’s suspicions toward democracy? (365)
- Back to the distinction between Nature and law, science and humanities, the permanent and the contingent: “Cato praises the changes in the laws because no man possesses a mind of such capacity that he can think of everything and because changes in conditions over time often require modifications to the laws. Not every statesman can fully understand–not to mention bring about–the best regime, but many together can approximate it. The best practical regime is then one that will not always be the same, for it will change from time to time as circumstances dictate and as opportunities for improvement arise” (366). The nned for re-founding (367). How can we cultivate this openness to change? How can we read Scipio’s openness to change in light of Laelius’ call to “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting…” (369).
- Why do we study history? 372
Homework
- First, read Lanham. Lanham’s essay is going to be a challenge, but it is worth the time (although it is only 45 pages, be prepared to re-read some sections of it). I am primarily concerned with explicating what Lanham calls “architectonic rhetoric.” Note that the weak/strong defense in the opening speaks directly to my previous question, when does truth happen? Before the rhetorical encounter? Or is “truth” the product of that encounter?
- I encourage you to read this lecture I wrote on Lanham, scroll down to the part where I write about why I love the strong defense. Though dense, it is short and puts the distinction between the strong and weak defense in pretty clear terms
- Second, I want you to spend some time looking at the following sites: The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Education, and/or PEW Research Education. I want you to look over these sites until you believe you can find an article that you can put in conversation with some element of our reading thus far. Compose a second blog post that summarizes this article and highlights a way that it connects to our reading.
