Education? The End of Civilization.

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,285
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
It is one of the great errors of our time to relate the terms 'education' with 'universities.' They no longer educate.
They turn out cookie-cutter formed Liberals, and provide one of the pieces of paper that prospective employers require.
That's all.



1. Yale classicist Donald Kagan: "Universities, he proposed, are failing students and hurting American democracy. Curricula are "individualized, unfocused and scattered." On campus, he said, "I find a kind of cultural void, an ignorance of the past, a sense of rootlessness and aimlessness." Rare are "faculty with atypical views," he charged. "Still rarer is an informed understanding of the traditions and institutions of our Western civilization and of our country and an appreciation of their special qualities and values." He counseled schools to adopt "a common core of studies" in the history, literature and philosophy "of our culture." By "our" he means Western.."

a. He was called a racist—or as the campus daily more politely editorialized, a peddler of "European cultural arrogance."

2. Democracy, wrote Mr. Kagan..., is "one of the rarest, most delicate and fragile flowers in the jungle of human experience." It relies on "free, autonomous and self-reliant" citizens and "extraordinary leadership" to flourish, even survive. These kinds of citizens aren't born—they need to be educated. "The essence of liberty, which is at the root of a liberal education, is that meaningful freedom means that you have choices to make," Mr. Kagan says. "At the university, there must be intellectual variety. If you don't have [that], it's not only that you are deprived of knowing some of the things you might know. It's that you are deprived of testing the things that you do know or do think you know or believe in, so that your knowledge is superficial."

3. As dean, Mr. Kagan championed hard sciences, rigorous hiring standards for faculty, and the protection of free speech....The elite universities after the war opened to minorities and women, not to mention Brooklyn College grads like himself—then "it was all about merit," he says." The Weekend Interview with Donald Kagan: 'Democracy May Have Had Its Day' - WSJ.com




4. The death knell was the ascension of the radical generation of the 1960's. They not only assaulted the universities, but cowed the administrations. Consider the talented and tireless Ira Magaziner.
“As a student activist at Brown University in the late 1960s, he helped codify the no-requirements approach of the so-called New Curriculum (few grades, lots of self-discovery) and changed the face of modern academics."
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."

a. The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.”
Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.




5. “…The fate of the modern university and the fate of Western civilization are inextricably intertwined.”
Brigette Berger, “Multiculturalism and the Modern University,” from ‘The Politics of Political Correctness,’ in the Partisan Review (1993) pp. 516, 519




And there you have it. For political power the Left has ended the hegemony of Western civilization.
In Obama's America we can see the elements of a backwater banana republic, where might makes right, and laws are made malleable.
That's all, folks.
 
I have been hearing a lot about the debate against making it easier to get student loans.

The argument against is then the universities would raise their tuition knowing they had students all lined up with fat wallets just ready to pay almost anything because of all that easy money.

That seems plausible.
 
I have been hearing a lot about the debate against making it easier to get student loans.

The argument against is then the universities would raise their tuition knowing they had students all lined up with fat wallets just ready to pay almost anything because of all that easy money.

That seems plausible.



The point of the OP is that the institutions about which you're worrying about funding.....don't educate.
 
People like you, PC, have been announcing the end of civilization for various and sundry reasons for as long as I have been alive. Yet it just keeps on keeping on.

Now as I am back in the university again, in science, not political crap, I can say from my point of view, that they are teaching. Teaching faster than when I was in school 40 some years ago. The new tools, hand held graphing calculators and laptop computers, make that doable. A bit faster than the slide rule I used that many years ago.

I simply cannot see any of the bullshit happening that you are flap yapping about.
 
People like you, PC, have been announcing the end of civilization for various and sundry reasons for as long as I have been alive. Yet it just keeps on keeping on.

Now as I am back in the university again, in science, not political crap, I can say from my point of view, that they are teaching. Teaching faster than when I was in school 40 some years ago. The new tools, hand held graphing calculators and laptop computers, make that doable. A bit faster than the slide rule I used that many years ago.

I simply cannot see any of the bullshit happening that you are flap yapping about.



"People like you, PC,....."


Yale classicist Donald Kagan?

Peter Collier?

David Horowitz?

Brigette Berger?



You are far too kind......I'm blushing.
 
I personally HATE it when people argue with anecdotal evidence, but...

The vast majority of young people that I encounter are breaking their asses to get into good colleges,working hard while there, getting worthwhile degrees and finding jobs without much trouble. They have some goofy political ideas, but they are young. What do you expect?

Certainly, most colleges and universities are loaded with pinko teachers, [BULLSHIT] studies departments, powerful "diversity" organizations, and subversive course material, but that garbage is not important to most middle-class students, who are there to get knowledge and skills that will get them started on a good career.

Those departments and teachers cater to upper-middle class students who are spoiled brats who have never had any responsibilities, as well as mediocre students who are too stupid or lazy to study anything substantive. I mean, honestly, would you (a reader of this BBS) allow your child to borrow $20 thousand a year to study, "Ethnic Studies"? Seriously.

There are a lot of great things going on at America's colleges and universities. This generation is much more geared to "professional" education than the past few generations going through. But you would never know it to read the newspaper articles on higher education. Young adults working hard to get an education is not very interesting or newsworthy.

When I was young, the only thing that was covered by the news organizations on campus were the Vietnam anti-war rallies. But most people on campus were ignoring them, and trying to get a good education, punctuated by a good bit of beer and/or MJ.
 
I personally HATE it when people argue with anecdotal evidence, but...

The vast majority of young people that I encounter are breaking their asses to get into good colleges,working hard while there, getting worthwhile degrees and finding jobs without much trouble. They have some goofy political ideas, but they are young. What do you expect?

Certainly, most colleges and universities are loaded with pinko teachers, [BULLSHIT] studies departments, powerful "diversity" organizations, and subversive course material, but that garbage is not important to most middle-class students, who are there to get knowledge and skills that will get them started on a good career.

Those departments and teachers cater to upper-middle class students who are spoiled brats who have never had any responsibilities, as well as mediocre students who are too stupid or lazy to study anything substantive. I mean, honestly, would you (a reader of this BBS) allow your child to borrow $20 thousand a year to study, "Ethnic Studies"? Seriously.

There are a lot of great things going on at America's colleges and universities. This generation is much more geared to "professional" education than the past few generations going through. But you would never know it to read the newspaper articles on higher education. Young adults working hard to get an education is not very interesting or newsworthy.

When I was young, the only thing that was covered by the news organizations on campus were the Vietnam anti-war rallies. But most people on campus were ignoring them, and trying to get a good education, punctuated by a good bit of beer and/or MJ.



I can understand why you hate 'arguing with anecdotal evidence.'
Very little of what you surmise is true.


1. In too many college courses, examinations are minimized, grades inflated, and grading is based on ‘class participation.’ This is especially true in schools of education, where prospective teachers are thus allowed to avoid competition, and invest in educational faddishness in opposition to conventional (bourgeois) methods and standards. Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” ch. 7.


2. The National Association of Scholars (NAS) documented the changes in universities comparing the years 1914, 1939, 1964 and 1993.

a. Decline in required courses from 55% of courses, down to 33% by 1993. And even more telling, in 1914 no exemptions were allowed in 98% of the courses, but by 1993 it was only in 29%. This, of course produces students with a far narrower basis for understanding context.

b. In 1914, 57% of institutions had a literature requirement, by 1993 this was down to 14%. The same pattern appeared in philosophy, religion, social science, natural science, and mathematics.

c. The study found “diminishing rigor at most prestigious colleges…” Students graduating from these elite schools not only had fewer assignments to complete but were asked to do considerably less in completing them.” The NAS commented on how this drop off in hard work negatively influences character, and this effect on society’s leaders impacts the strength and vitality of society.

d. Decline of rigor can be seen, as well, in the number of days classes were in session, from 204 in 1914 to 156 in 1993, and the length of a class period fell by 10.2%.
The National Association of Scholars, “The Dissolution of General Education: 1914-1993” National Association of Scholars


3. Students are taught by left-wing professors that traditional respect for logic, evidence, intellectual honesty, and the other requirements for scholastic discipline are not merely passé, but repressive, attempting to support a society that benefits only white, heterosexual males.


4. The state if education in earlier times?
In “The Meaning of Everything,” Simon Winchester discusses the English of the time (June 6, 1928 the Oxford English Dictionary was completed) as follows:

“The English establishment of the day might be rightly derided at this remove as having been class-ridden and imperialist, bombastic and blimpish, racist and insouciant- but it was marked undeniably also by a sweeping erudition and confidence, and it was peopled by men and women who felt they were able to know all, to understand much, and in consequence to radiate the wisdom of deep learning.”

How times have changed.
 
As in most man-made creations there is change. Universities and colleges have also changed. At one time universities were intended to teach the sons of gentlemen to be gentlemen. There was no need to teach the sons of gentlemen how to get a job as most did not need to work. What was taught was subject matter that gave the soon to be gentlemen a leg up on the riff-raff. They taught the earth was round and composed of atoms, astrology was nonsense and in the end they destroyed much of the mythology the lower classes believed. A few professions were taught, such as medicine, religion and law for those few that did not want the life of leisure.
I think some today accuse universities of being left wing because they still continue to teach the world is round and still try to destroy some of our riff-raff mythology.
How many people go to college today, not for that old classical education but to learn a trade, to get a job, and make money?
Maybe Hutchins was right with the GI bill, that the veterans of World War II would not appreciate the Great Books curriculum and would change education, their goal was not to be gentlemen but to get a job.
In any case today many see college as that road to a job and perhaps that is forcing the old university education to change.
 
Just graduated on Sunday and I am currently being a self entitled narcissist on my couch and enjoying it for a little bit. College opened my eyes to thinking for yourself if anything. Sure teachers had political views that they would proudly share, but they go into that profession so they can have a podium. If you aren't a gullible fool maintaining your political views is easy. College allowed me to have more complex political thoughts because you get to bounce ideas off of friends when you're out at the bar talking about lectures. college was a sickeningly unnecessary expense, but its nothing to Law School. I needed it like everyone else does today, the key was to always think for yourself and always look to expand your ideas.
 
It is easy to criticize an institution as diverse as a university by focusing on the individuals getting the most attention, who are often the most controversial.

As I have posted in this space before, Academe went through a major metamorphosis in the Vietnam period, from which it has not (and will not ever) recover. There were three driving forces in this period: (1) millions of young men who would never previously have been considered "college material," wanting badly to go to college in order to avoid the draft, (2) the institutions wanting to grow and "profit" by the unprecedented influx of new bodies due to the Baby Boom, and (3) the realization by the Proffesoriate that the possibility existed that they might give a failing grade to a young man which would ultimately lead to his (a) failing out of school, (b) getting drafted, and (c) getting killed in Vietnam. No professor wanted this on his conscience.

So college "admissions" offices went from being the group who weeded out the garbage and ensured that all incoming students were up to snuff, to being recruiters, beating the bushes for anyone with even arguable credentials who could either pay or borrow enough for the tuition, so that the institution could get bigger and bigger.

When I went to Pitt in 1967, they advised us that 2/3 of the freshman class would not graduate. When I went back after serving in Vietnam, in 1975, it had basically become impossible to fail - unless you had a perverse desire to do so.

Academic rigor?

Are you serious?

But I still maintain that MOST of the students are there to get an education, and do so. They are also, by 21 years old, mature enough to discern which teachers have something worthwhile to sell and which ones have never been gainfully employed in their pathetic little isolated lives, and are peddling bullshit.

Just my observation and opinion, based on the college students who come across my radar screen.
 
It is easy to criticize an institution as diverse as a university by focusing on the individuals getting the most attention, who are often the most controversial.

As I have posted in this space before, Academe went through a major metamorphosis in the Vietnam period, from which it has not (and will not ever) recover. There were three driving forces in this period: (1) millions of young men who would never previously have been considered "college material," wanting badly to go to college in order to avoid the draft, (2) the institutions wanting to grow and "profit" by the unprecedented influx of new bodies due to the Baby Boom, and (3) the realization by the Proffesoriate that the possibility existed that they might give a failing grade to a young man which would ultimately lead to his (a) failing out of school, (b) getting drafted, and (c) getting killed in Vietnam. No professor wanted this on his conscience.

So college "admissions" offices went from being the group who weeded out the garbage and ensured that all incoming students were up to snuff, to being recruiters, beating the bushes for anyone with even arguable credentials who could either pay or borrow enough for the tuition, so that the institution could get bigger and bigger.

When I went to Pitt in 1967, they advised us that 2/3 of the freshman class would not graduate. When I went back after serving in Vietnam, in 1975, it had basically become impossible to fail - unless you had a perverse desire to do so.

Academic rigor?

Are you serious?

But I still maintain that MOST of the students are there to get an education, and do so. They are also, by 21 years old, mature enough to discern which teachers have something worthwhile to sell and which ones have never been gainfully employed in their pathetic little isolated lives, and are peddling bullshit.

Just my observation and opinion, based on the college students who come across my radar screen.


"...MOST of the students are there to get an education,..."


All depends on what one calls 'an education.'
 
"An Education"

Something that will make you employable in what is loosely called a "professional" position.
 
Perhaps many go to school to have their beliefs and concepts reinforced and instead they run into instructors offering different beliefs, different ideas, different concepts, so the schools are labeled as wrong, or worse communistic or even worse, liberal, or gasp, conservative. If we expect a university too not introduce ideas different than our own, then why go, except for the paper?
 
All I'm saying is that we should teach kids useful information. Not classes they will NEVER use. Show me proof they use classes like that and I'll show you a government official who doesn't lie.
 
All I'm saying is that we should teach kids useful information. Not classes they will NEVER use. Show me proof they use classes like that and I'll show you a government official who doesn't lie.

Im with you 100%. American schools teach useless classes while they avoid important info like balancing a check book. In defense of philosophy though, I attended a Catholic college that required 2 philosophy classes and 1 theology to graduate. I had the same views as you before I took them and I can honestly say that they opened my mind to complex thinking and it was beneficial. However, this was college level. The fact that public high schools teach drawing, music and theater each year instead of a credit class is asinine. Im not saying get rid of the arts at all, but maybe a few classes on life would help the youth out.
 

Forum List

Back
Top