Reasons against a liberal arts education?

[Jean in Newcastle]

or perhaps I should say a core education? I am a staunch liberal arts proponent. I know the reasons that I use for it (mainly - being a well-rounded person and citizen, and having the skill base to choose almost any option out there).

 

A good friend uses a very child-led Montessori based homeschool style. We get together for playdates and we all enjoy each other. I do not quiz her kids or her but we do talk about homeschooling during our visits in addition to everything else in her life. I've noticed that she often will make comments about how her kids will not choose to do science or math often. And even the history or writing or reading that they choose to do is very narrow. (Narrow in the sense that they will only read history of the Vikings (not for a short period of time but for all the years we've known them) or their science is only the study of animals that interest them and never any other kind of science.

 

I asked her once about her goals for high school graduation (we both intend to homeschool through high school) and she said that she had no goals other than what the children might have wanted to learn by then. I don't want to grill her on her choices as I don't think her individual choices is any of my business. But I do have questions about why someone would choose not to have a liberal arts education. My reasons for asking are for better understanding of other people's views. So what are reasons that people would have against a liberal arts education? (P.S. I do realize that many on this board tend toward my view of liberal arts but that there are many without that view as well.)

[SquirrellyMama]

Maybe she's thinking about going with her kids' strengths. I can understand that. If science isn't their strong suit then let them excel at what they are good at. I think early elementary is for exploring everything but maybe a little extra time or give them the reins for the subjects they naturally excel in.

 

I would think high school would be a time where there should be more choice by the student. If they don't plan to have a career in science then don't force extra science.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Kelly

[hornblower]

I think it's not so much not valuing a liberal arts education; it's just that some people value 'child-led' more.

 

I know many child-led folks and some take a very vary hands-off approach, some do more 'strewing', some put in a few 'requirements'. But if you've decided on child-led, even if you're a 'strewer', what do you do if your child doesn't pick any of that material? Isn't interested in medieval or rennaissance or explorers? Even if the parent thinks this material is valuable/important, if the child doesn't, a child-led educator would have to just leave it at that.

 

I have known some people us the WTM in an unschooling way by giving the educator a list of things to strew in front of the child. The idea is that hopefully something will grab them & this way at least you've got a working list of ideas & concepts to present. It seems to work for some families.

[shadowcat]

Well, I agree with you. I think its not so much that she's against liberal arts, though, as that she's for child-led education. So she lets the kids chose what to learn. Then if a kid wants to know more about, say, railroads, s/he'll need to study some engineering and economics and history to understand them. I had a long and fascinating conversation with an unschooler once, and that's my vaguely recalled nutshell of her philosophy.

[Sara R]

She probably has a romantic faith that a child, leading himself, will learn everything he needs to learn. I think that faith is misplaced. But that faith is shared by many: turn-of-the-20th-century progressivist educational reformers, John Holt, Summerhill School, and modern unschoolers.

[SquirrellyMama]

She probably has a romantic faith that a child, leading himself, will learn everything he needs to learn. I think that faith is misplaced. But that faith is shared by many: turn-of-the-20th-century progressivist educational reformers, John Holt, Summerhill School, and modern unschoolers.

 

I think it is very possible but more people need to be realistic like I had to become. Most kids are not motivated enough. I have 3 kids and I think out of the 3 I have one that could possibly unschool because there is motivation. The other two are unmotivated and would not work.

 

Kelly

[WishboneDawn]

She probably has a romantic faith that a child, leading himself, will learn everything he needs to learn. I think that faith is misplaced. But that faith is shared by many: turn-of-the-20th-century progressivist educational reformers, John Holt, Summerhill School, and modern unschoolers.

 

I don't think any unschooler expects their child will learn everything he/she needs to learn if by that you mean having a list of things (spelling, geography, algebra, cl modern history, etc.) that a child needs to learn. Rather they'll develop the skills, discipline and curiousity to learn anything they need to learn when they need to learn it.

 

Maybe they won't learn algebra as a child but at 25 when they decide they'd love to explore it or go into a career that demands it they'll be natural and confident self-led learners and be able to pursue that.

 

I was once an unschooler but I'm leaning more and more to a liberal arts education myself for my kids. I don't think it's because either way is superior or one is flawed but rather simply because my goals for my kids have shifted over time and right now a liberal arts education fits those goals a little closer. Either that or I got too chicken to completely unschool. :D

 

I think both are reasonable (and radical these days) roads of education for children. If one doesn't appeal to you it's likely more a matter of your goals then either one's ultimate efficacy.

[WishboneDawn]

I think it is very possible but more people need to be realistic like I had to become. Most kids are not motivated enough. I have 3 kids and I think out of the 3 I have one that could possibly unschool because there is motivation. The other two are unmotivated and would not work.

 

Kelly

 

An unschooler might argue that them being unmotivated would be exactly why you should unschool! :)

[amy g.]

I think child-directed learning works very well for some children. It helps if they are raised in a home with role models who are life long learners, and a minimum of brain-candy activities to distract them.

 

It's like asking if children should be forced to eat vegetables or if they will choose to eat them of their own free will. Some kids will always have to be forced. Some kids never will. Most will fall somewhere in the middle. you increase your chances for success if all of the adults in the family eat healthy food, and there is no junk for available.

[SquirrellyMama]

An unschooler might argue that them being unmotivated would be exactly why you should unschool! :)

 

But an umotivated child is not learning anything if they are unmotivated to learn. I have a child who would just sit around all day and not do any school if I didn't force her to do some. I tried the unschooling but it didn't work with her.

 

I would love to do it but she was not willing to learn. I love to learn and read but she hates it.

 

I think unschooling can work and does work for a lot of people. Wasn't working with my unmotivated kids.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I think it's not so much not valuing a liberal arts education; it's just that some people value 'child-led' more.

 

I know many child-led folks and some take a very vary hands-off approach, some do more 'strewing', some put in a few 'requirements'. But if you've decided on child-led, even if you're a 'strewer', what do you do if your child doesn't pick any of that material? Isn't interested in medieval or rennaissance or explorers? Even if the parent thinks this material is valuable/important, if the child doesn't, a child-led educator would have to just leave it at that.

 

I have known some people us the WTM in an unschooling way by giving the educator a list of things to strew in front of the child. The idea is that hopefully something will grab them & this way at least you've got a working list of ideas & concepts to present. It seems to work for some families.

 

Do you know her?! I think you nailed it on the head with how much she values a child-led education. Thank you, that helps me to understand her better, by putting it into words for me.

 

Yes, she strews. And yes she gets frustrated when they pick some of the material but leave much of it. And she does feel like she just has to leave it at that. (And that's where I have to bite my tongue hard because my response would be to tell them to do it anyway.)

 

She does strew SOTW and some other WTM type stuff.

[tdeveson]

I love the term "child-led." Children can't lead themselves in education. If they could, they wouldn't need one. Your friend is doing her children a great disservice. One day, one of them may wish to go to college and the child will be utterly unprepared. (What do you mean I can't tell you what you teach me, and you just give me an A on it?)

 

I know people who are not doing a liberal arts education for their children, but they're still teaching them enough content that it counts as learning. Your friend sounds like a lovely mom and a lousy teacher. Just my opinion.

[Jean in Newcastle]

 

I know people who are not doing a liberal arts education for their children, but they're still teaching them enough content that it counts as learning. Your friend sounds like a lovely mom and a lousy teacher. Just my opinion.

 

Well, talking in general terms I will agree with you about the importance of a liberal arts education. That is why I am a strong advocate for such. But while I have a strong liberal arts values, I value the right of Moms and Dads to decide on the education of their own children even more!

 

BTW - her children are not untaught. They read, write and figure as well as or better than their peers at the local public school. It is on content areas that we have the greatest divide. Her kids are approx. 3rd, 6th and 8th grade (approx. because she does not do grade levels) and they have in-depth exposure to some things of interest to each of them and absolutely no exposure to some other things that most school-children in any form of educational setting would have had.

[Sara R]

Maybe they won't learn algebra as a child but at 25 when they decide they'd love to explore it or go into a career that demands it they'll be natural and confident self-led learners and be able to pursue that.

 

I think this might work with some subjects better than others. If you learn to read, you can teach yourself most liberal arts subjects. But math is a linear, progressive subject, in which you have to master earlier levels to succeed at the higher levels. While there are some kids who are naturals at math, most have to plug away an hour or so a day over years in order to learn math at a level needed for college entrance. And math is required for many professions, especially high paying professions.

 

My daughter has an intense interest in wildlife. She wants to be a wildlife biologist. This will require some math. She doesn't naturally excel at math, but she knows if she works hard she can reach her goal. So she works hard. Still, if I wasn't here supporting her and requiring the work, she wouldn't muster up the discipline every day to do it.

 

Most of us don't follow our bliss every moment of every day. Most of us have to have self-discipline to slog through the parts we don't like, so we can get to the parts we do like. Children usually have not yet developed this self-discipline, so they need encouragement.

 

And I don't know about hypothetical unschooled children at age 25, but I was a mother of my own children when I was 25. My husband was well on his way to supporting a family when he was the same age. When you hit adulthood, your first priority is to deal with the responsibilities of adulthood. Most adults don't have an hour a day to study math for 4-5 years (or however long it takes just to catch up). The time for that was in childhood. Maybe there are a few unschooled kids who can go from addition to Algebra II in a matter of months, but I know a lot of people who take remedial math at school for a few semesters, and then give up, figuring they aren't college material.

[IsabelC]

I think that by strewing and then getting upset if the child is not interested in much of the material, this mother is setting herself up for frustration. If she believes that certain areas of learning are a 'must' - as many people do - then it would be simpler for her as well as more honest to simply inform her children that x, y and z have to be done. There is no point in giving a child a choice and then not being willing to accept the choice the child makes.

[LibraryLover]

My unschoolers are *highly* motivated and it costs me money, dammit.

 

:D

[dangermom]

It's my impression that unschooling can work amazingly well for certain kinds of people. I'm not one of them, and it seems like an awful lot of work to me--I mean, I work hard at this classical education thing, but doing a really good job at unschooling seems like it would be more work than that! :svengo:

[WishboneDawn]

I love the term "child-led." Children can't lead themselves in education. If they could, they wouldn't need one. Your friend is doing her children a great disservice. One day, one of them may wish to go to college and the child will be utterly unprepared. (What do you mean I can't tell you what you teach me, and you just give me an A on it?)

 

I don't think you have a clear idea of what child-led learning entails. I've known and known of quite a few unschoolers and children who grew up in a child-led model who did just fine at college. Your bit in brackets doesn't even seem to have any relation to child-led learning.

[phathui5]

One day, one of them may wish to go to college and the child will be utterly unprepared. (What do you mean I can't tell you what you teach me, and you just give me an A on it?)

 

 

I can tell you that I've met adult former-unschoolers at homeschooling conferences who have gone to college and are working and doing well.

 

That said, in the unschooling families I've met, I've been generally uncomfortable with the children's base of knowledge and academic skills. They've not known things I thought were basic.

[eternalknot]

or perhaps I should say a core education? I am a staunch liberal arts proponent. I know the reasons that I use for it (mainly - being a well-rounded person and citizen, and having the skill base to choose almost any option out there).

 

/snip/

 

But I do have questions about why someone would choose not to have a liberal arts education. My reasons for asking are for better understanding of other people's views. So what are reasons that people would have against a liberal arts education? (P.S. I do realize that many on this board tend toward my view of liberal arts but that there are many without that view as well.)

 

 

It might just be that people don't share that need to feel well-rounded; that for whatever reason, they feel whole and like full citizens without having that broad general knowledge to call upon. For instance, someone maybe doesn't realize (or care to) just how much a liberal arts background can open up one's eyes to the nuances of our lives - including references from past fine arts fused into modern pop culture.

 

I think historically, there were two tracks: the liberal arts track, and the vocational track. I don't think that a liberal arts background would suit all people -- I think that all would personally benefit from it in some manner, but I don't think all are suited to it, or are interested in it, or will grow professionally from it. And not everyone is in a position to focus on self-actualization, you know? For some people, the priority is to invest one's resources (time, energy, focus) into something with a tangible end result. A marketable skill, versus say - the ability to recognize the who/what/where/when/why behind "Do be, or not to be - that is the question."

 

In short, maybe it's less of an anti- stance, and more of a "doesn't realize how pervasive the liberal arts are in our society" or "has less need for self-actualization, and higher need for skills" mindset.

 

I fall somewhere in the middle.

[WishboneDawn]

My daughter has an intense interest in wildlife. She wants to be a wildlife biologist. This will require some math. She doesn't naturally excel at math, but she knows if she works hard she can reach her goal. So she works hard. Still, if I wasn't here supporting her and requiring the work, she wouldn't muster up the discipline every day to do it.

 

I'm not sure why the assumption is that unschooling would mean this wouldn't happen. If I was still the radical unschooler I used to be and faced with a similar situation I'd have sat down with my daughter, reviewed her goals and what she needed to do to accomplish them. If we decided daily math was what was needed to get their then we'd be doing daily math. If she faltered I'd be reminding her of her goals.

 

Most of us don't follow our bliss every moment of every day. Most of us have to have self-discipline to slog through the parts we don't like, so we can get to the parts we do like. Children usually have not yet developed this self-discipline, so they need encouragement.

 

I think most kids actually do have self-discipline, just not in areas adults tend to recognize. It often DOES happen when kids are following their bliss. It's in that, in learning to skateboard or build Lego creations or design paper doll clothes or whatever that they learn skills of discipline they can, if we let them, eventually bring to other things.

 

Regardless, this idea that unschoolers don't get that people sometimes have to do things they don't like doesn't fly with me. My daughter takes violin lessons and I've let her lead and what she's learned through that it that to get to the bliss of a well-played piece she needs hours and hours of slogging through unblissful practice. Yes, there are times she doesn't practice for days on end or even longer and then the consequences come home to roost and she's working again because she's understand what happens when she slips. We've now come to the understanding that I'll remind her when she needs to practice each day and she'll go in and spend the 45 mins to an hour she likes to spend with the violin.

 

I sometimes feel that the conversation here about unschoolers are like the conversation I hear from school parents about homeschooling. More about what they assume is the case rather then what actually is.

[amygabrielle]

I sometimes feel that the conversation here about unschoolers are like the conversation I hear from school parents about homeschooling. More about what they assume is the case rather then what actually is.

:iagree: Most of our homeschooling friends are unschoolers. We're kind of the odd balls in the group. The unschooling kids are learning, but in a totally different way and lifestyle then the classically schooled kids. I tried the whole Waldorf-Montessori homeschooling thing and it was so not us. It didn't jibe with our lifestyle and my daughter wasn't into it.

[stripe]

I can imagine someone who wants their children to grow up well versed in the sciences, too, and only to a lesser degree the humanities and so forth. That's not really abandoning one's children to the wilderness.

 

I think it is worth considering that people do value different things in life (for example the Amish and Jehovah's Witnesses who are not so enraptured with education at all, but more to provide a solid grounding in the basics, from what I understand, and then a life of hard work). But I must once again recommend the book "Shop Class as Soulcraft" as a very thoughtful discussion of why manual labor can be quite mentally challenging and provide more autonomy than many white collar office jobs. The author is a motorcycle mechanic with a PhD in political philosophy.

 

That being said, I'm uncomfortable with a lot of what passes for education in virtually all realms.

[IsabelC]

I find it very interesting that self discipline is mentioned by several people as a benefit of the more classical / rigorous approach. That is actually our main concern with the structured approach, that the children will lack self discipline because discipline is being imposed on them by us (or by the curriculum). I feel that the more freedom children have, the more discipline they develop. They have to, because nobody is doing it for them.

[Laura Corin]

I think this might work with some subjects better than others. If you learn to read, you can teach yourself most liberal arts subjects. But math is a linear, progressive subject, in which you have to master earlier levels to succeed at the higher levels. While there are some kids who are naturals at math, most have to plug away an hour or so a day over years in order to learn math at a level needed for college entrance.

 

I'm sorry, I can't find a reference for it. As far as I remember, a maths teacher took a bunch of children who had been handed through school until they were teenagers without actually mastering even the most basic maths (addition, subtraction, etc.). The teacher managed to teach them in a very short time (I have six weeks in my head) everything they needed to catch up to their grade level.

 

I was very interested in this (although I haven't had the courage to do anything about it with my own children). It suggested to me that much of the maths that we teach children could be learned much faster if we waited a few years - it would be much less of a slog.

 

Laura

[Laura Corin]

It's my impression that unschooling can work amazingly well for certain kinds of people. I'm not one of them, and it seems like an awful lot of work to me--I mean, I work hard at this classical education thing, but doing a really good job at unschooling seems like it would be more work than that! :svengo:

 

I don't trust myself to do a good job of unschooling - I need curricula and timetables (loose ones at present) to ensure that I don't spend the day reading books and eating chocolate.

 

Laura

[EthiopianFood]

Most of us don't follow our bliss every moment of every day. Most of us have to have self-discipline to slog through the parts we don't like, so we can get to the parts we do like. Children usually have not yet developed this self-discipline, so they need encouragement.

 

But if they wouldn't do it without you requiring it, then is it really self discipline? It seems more like the ability to just do what you are told.

 

When you hit adulthood, your first priority is to deal with the responsibilities of adulthood. Most adults don't have an hour a day to study math for 4-5 years (or however long it takes just to catch up). The time for that was in childhood. Maybe there are a few unschooled kids who can go from addition to Algebra II in a matter of months, but I know a lot of people who take remedial math at school for a few semesters, and then give up, figuring they aren't college material.

 

I do agree with this though. Who does have the time? Although I suppose an unschooler would say that, if the person really wants something, then they would make the time. As for the second part, I'm not really sure what they would say, as I certainly agree that mathmatical thinking seems to be something that is much more easily developed in childhood, much like learning a second language. It's usually possible later on, but unless the person is gifted in that area, it can prove to be an almost insurmountable task.

 

I could never unschool, personally. I feel that I want my children to benefit from my life experiences. They can't know what they will wish they had learned. Technically, *I* can't fully know either, but I will do my best, based on what I have observed in my life and in others'. Maybe, like a pp said, it is better to let them have more of a say as they get older. Then they get a good foundation, but will also develop the self discipline and self knowledge that some unschoolers enjoy. Maybe?? :tongue_smilie:

[stripe]

I'm sorry, I can't find a reference for it. As far as I remember, a maths teacher took a bunch of children who had been handed through school until they were teenagers without actually mastering even the most basic maths (addition, subtraction, etc.). The teacher managed to teach them in a very short time (I have six weeks in my head) everything they needed to catch up to their grade level.

 

I know what you're talking about, and I can't find it either. However I think there are a few things missing. One, I can imagine that anything can be learned by a motivated person. So why not delay everything until someone is 16 -- why not do a crash course in American history, for example? Secondly, is math about memorizing a few things? I envision it as more of a process of thinking. I also don't think a crash course gives someone the nuances of a subject area. Reading Cliffs Notes doesn't make you a literary expert.

 

Also, what happens if you get to 16 and your child refuses to do "all you ever needed to know about elementary math in 6 weeks" because that child has heard about how awful math is and is scared of it. The children in the study were highly motivated. I think with a discrete and small subject area (for example, grammar) it may be very wise to wait, cover informally through exposure to "everyday" matters, and then cover thoroughly and well one time, instead of dragging it out all over the place and never actually learning it.

 

I would not personally delay doing math because I think it's so much richer than just doing sums and the like; my kids enjoy doing math, even on their own. I'd much rather do math work than read Shakespeare.

[Renee in NC]

So what are the reasons FOR a liberal arts education? I happen to love to learn about everything. So I spend a lot of time on it. But practically speaking it hasn't done much for me. If I didn't enjoy it, I can't imagine I would really focus on it so much.

 

That's what I wonder, too. I love to read and love to learn, so I know a lot about a lot of different topics. My dh, OTOH, doesn't love to read or learn, so he doesn't know much about those types of topics. His formal education at the elementary and high school level was MUCH better than mine.

 

I know other people like this, too. It seems that if people are not interested in a topic, then they do what they have to do to get through the material and then promptly forget it. If they are interested, they really internalize it.

 

I'm really working right now on my "philosophy of education" so I can let that guide my hs decisions rather than what other people think.

[dangermom]

 

So what are the reasons FOR a liberal arts education? I happen to love to learn about everything. So I spend a lot of time on it. But practically speaking it hasn't done much for me. If I didn't enjoy it, I can't imagine I would really focus on it so much.

IMO a liberal arts education is not about money, but about cultivating the mind. You're looking to produce an intelligent, thoughtful person who is ready to engage the world, express coherent opinions, and be an active citizen. Career-type education is then put on top of that.

[LibraryLover]

.

 

I was very interested in this (although I haven't had the courage to do anything about it with my own children). It suggested to me that much of the maths that we teach children could be learned much faster if we waited a few years - it would be much less of a slog.

 

Laura

 

Same with reading, same with learning to tie your shoes, same as using the potty. You can start when they aren't ready and slog through until they are. If you don't start slogging until they are actually ready, it takes very little time, and the aggravation is greatly reduced or non -existent.

 

I prefer not to drive myself or my children crazy. Yet they can all read, tie their shoes, and use the potty. :001_huh:

[dangermom]

 

But practically speaking I have never really had to draw on my liberal arts education for anything. It sounds ideal when I talk about a liberal arts education, but it hasn't panned out to be what we are told it is supposed to be.

I think I need a concrete example! To me it's more about being a thinking person with a well-furnished mind than about doing anything concrete with it, I guess. But I'm a librarian, so I do draw on what liberal-arts knowledge I have (which is partial and sad at best) in order to help people find and work with the information they need. Other than that, it's all things like being a better mom, or enjoying living in my own head, or enjoying book club, just life stuff like that.

[stripe]

Okay, how does one determine when someone is ready to learn something? I don't think one needs to be 16 to learn any math or reading, and one might be ready to learn driving at age 14 (it's legal for driving farm vehicles, after all). What are the implications of a system where everything is delayed until someone can learn basic facts quickly? I don't think many educational activities are analogous to potty training.

[MarthaT]

But practically speaking I have never really had to draw on my liberal arts education for anything. It sounds ideal when I talk about a liberal arts education, but it hasn't panned out to be what we are told it is supposed to be.

 

I agree, I've seen some of my oldests friends struggle to find jobs with thier liberal arts degrees

 

[LibraryLover]

I don't think many educational activities are analogous to potty training.

 

 

Why don't you think so?

[forty-two]

But practically speaking I have never really had to draw on my liberal arts education for anything. It sounds ideal when I talk about a liberal arts education, but it hasn't panned out to be what we are told it is supposed to be.

I agree, I've seen some of my oldests friends struggle to find jobs with thier liberal arts degrees

 

To me, we're talking about apples and oranges here. The point of vocational training is to learn things that will enable you to get a better, more fulfilling job than you would otherwise be able to have. The point of a liberal arts education is to learn things that will enable you to have a better, more fulfilling life than you would otherwise be able to have.

 

The fact that a liberal arts education might not land you a job doesn't make it worthless - that wasn't what it was intended to do. Yes, a person with a good liberal arts education will, imo, be more likely to succeed at whatever job, with its prerequisite vocational training (including engineering, medical school, etc., as well as the skilled trades) that they desire than if they had not had a liberal arts education. However, that doesn't mean that the increased ability to get a good job is the sole reason - or even the most important reason - to value a liberal arts education.

[Laura Corin]

Same with reading, same with learning to tie your shoes, same as using the potty.

 

But my eldest didn't learn to tie shoe laces until he was nine, about the same time he learned to ride a bike. I could have spent years teaching him to master both skills - instead he learned them each in a few days.

 

Perhaps we should surround our children with an atmosphere of general knowledge (arts, science, history, etc.) but leave specific skill areas until the last possible moment, when we know they will learn quickly.

 

Laura

[LibraryLover]

But my eldest didn't learn to tie shoe laces until he was nine, about the same time he learned to ride a bike. I could have spent years teaching him to master both skills - instead he learned them each in a few days.

 

Perhaps we should surround our children with an atmosphere of general knowledge (arts, science, history, etc.) but leave specific skill areas until the last possible moment, when we know they will learn quickly.

 

Laura

 

I'm on board!

 

Even TWTM suggests this, in their own way:

 

"Your job, during the elementary school years, is to supply the knowledge and skills that will allow your child to overflow with creativity as his mind matures.

 

That doesn't mean your first grader has to learn about complex subjects in depth or that you're going to force him to memorize long lists of details. In the first four years of learning, (my note: they are referring to the grammar stage, not the first four years of life) you'll be filling your child's mind and imagination with as many pictures, stories, and facts as you can. Your goal is to supply mental pegs on which later information can be hung."

[dangermom]

To me, we're talking about apples and oranges here. The point of vocational training is to learn things that will enable you to get a better, more fulfilling job than you would otherwise be able to have. The point of a liberal arts education is to learn things that will enable you to have a better, more fulfilling life than you would otherwise be able to have.

 

 

 

:iagree: That's why I said that a liberal arts education isn't about money, it's about furnishing your mind. Then you put career education on top of that--with a solid liberal education, you are fitted to start learning any sort of work. I guess I think of it like the trivium--it prepares you to get going on any path you choose.

[MommyRyan]

My husband and I are eclectic homeschoolers, and I would venture to say we "unschool" in history and science...to a point, and "child-led"...to a point. While we cover all that might be covered in a liberal arts education, there are no strict requirements set in. One of my twins is a full year ahead of his sister in math; my son has been studying the Revolutionary War for his history for almost three years; sometimes we'll go two weeks without learning math. I let my kids pick when they learn which subjects, and which units they want to go into for history and science. If they don't have any ideas, we go to Biography, History Channel, Discovery Channel, Museums, Library, the internet...and they can spend as much or as little time as they want on it. I don't worry about my nature-obsessed daughter missing out on physics or chemistry; I never used them, and if she wants to be a doctor, or a nuclear scientist, I suspect she'll decide to learn them before it's necessary. But they are introduced to the "liberal arts" worldview, which I take to mean about every point of view in which to view the world as we know it, and they know what they "need" to know, and how to learn what they don't. I don't need to turn to the Powers That Be (Board of Ed) to tell me what each person "ought to" know.

[Impish]

I've gotten a wee confused in reading through this thread :001_huh:

 

I thought what was being discussed is a liberal arts education at home, not at a post secondary level.

 

I fully embrace (what I think of anyways) a 'liberal arts education' in homeschooling.

 

I would be dramatically opposed to one of my kids getting a Degree in it. Frankly, a degree in liberal arts in my area ensures you little more than a job at Chapters or fast food. It simply is one of the more useless possibilities when it comes to employment or career foundation in my area.

 

If/When my kids go through to college or University, I will strongly encourage that their money (or hopefully, scholarship) is spent on something that will enable them to find successful employment/career opportunities upon graduation. And by 'successful' I mean something that will pay their bills comfortably and ensure that they a) don't starve and b) don't live in my basement until I die.

[Heather in WI]

So what are the reasons FOR a liberal arts education? I happen to love to learn about everything. So I spend a lot of time on it. But practically speaking it hasn't done much for me. If I didn't enjoy it, I can't imagine I would really focus on it so much.

 

Ooh! This stirred the memory of a site I had completely forgotten about! It, combined with the Well-Trained Mind, influenced our decision to classically educate our children.

 

 

 

The goal of a classical liberal arts education is to free a person (thus “liberal†= liberating) from the narrowness, rigidity, and prejudice which is the natural characteristic of our minds. The goal of a Christian classical education is to do so for the glory of God. While it is true that apart from salvation an educated person may be nothing more than an educated fool, it is also true that an ignorant Christian, no matter how godly, is limited by that ignorance; an educated Christian is a more effective servant of God because his natural abilities and talents have been developed rather than allowed to atrophy. The tradition of education in western civilization has been propelled for nearly two millenia by Christianity, during which time it has always assumed diligent training in godliness by a child’s parents as an underpinning to education.

 

 

 

That assumed, the liberation of a child’s mind is accomplished by teaching him the following, which can be grouped according to the classical Trivium-- grammar, logic, and rhetoric (the first five points)--and Theology, the King of the Sciences (the last two points):

 

 

 

• to listen and read carefully;

 

• to think clearly and express himself persuasively;

 

• to comprehend his position in space, time, and culture and his relation to other places, times, and people;

 

• to appreciate and learn from the difference between his own and those other places, times, and people;

 

• to enjoy a wider range of beauty as a result of that wider exposure;

 

• to devote himself to continued learning on his own, using the tools of learning acquired in the previous five points;

 

• to evaluate, and ascribe the proper significance to, all of the above in the light of a transcendent, absolute standard;

 

• to construct and defend a coherent, biblical worldview as a result of his education.

 

 

 

It is NOT to get a job.

 

 

http://www.classical-homeschooling.org/grammar/preparing.html

 

[stripe]

Originally Posted by stripe

I don't think many educational activities are analogous to potty training.

 

Why don't you think so?

 

"Potty training" consists solely of running to the toilet when you've got to go. The key is to recognize one's physical urges. Once you've got that figured out, there is nothing much more to think about. There is no growth potential. There is no deep analysis. Learning how to think, how to analyze poetry, or how to construct a wind-powered tower to power one's home, deciding how to plant the crops for the season, or to develop a care plan for a sick person, is more complicated than merely recognizing the twinge of a full bladder, for most people, in my opinion, and leaves room for further intellectual stimulation and thought. I would hope most people's bathroom habits are not so complicated.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I thought what was being discussed is a liberal arts education at home, not at a post secondary level.

 

 

That's what I thought was being discussed too - and I'm the OP!

[Jean in Newcastle]

I don't worry about my nature-obsessed daughter missing out on physics or chemistry; I never used them, and if she wants to be a doctor, or a nuclear scientist, I suspect she'll decide to learn them before it's necessary. But they are introduced to the "liberal arts" worldview, which I take to mean about every point of view in which to view the world as we know it, and they know what they "need" to know, and how to learn what they don't. I don't need to turn to the Powers That Be (Board of Ed) to tell me what each person "ought to" know.

 

 

I'm not picking on you, MommyRyan, but your post triggered some questions/thoughts for me.

 

1. Perhaps I'm anal (my friend that I started out discussing in the first post, says that I am:001_smile:) but I have this feeling that everyone should know some of the basics of physics or chemistry. So much of our lives are governed by ideas like magnetism, gravity, friction, molecules and different chemicals. . . I guess I feel like a liberal arts approach gives you a certain "literacy" - not just in reading but in culture, science, and math.

 

2. Could you explain what you mean by a liberal arts worldview? I'm not tracking what you are saying here and I really do want to understand it!

[LibraryLover]

Originally Posted by stripe

I don't think many educational activities are analogous to potty training.

 

 

 

"Potty training" consists solely of running to the toilet when you've got to go. The key is to recognize one's physical urges. Once you've got that figured out, there is nothing much more to think about. There is no growth potential. There is no deep analysis. Learning how to think, how to analyze poetry, or how to construct a wind-powered tower to power one's home, deciding how to plant the crops for the season, or to develop a care plan for a sick person, is more complicated than merely recognizing the twinge of a full bladder, for most people, in my opinion, and leaves room for further intellectual stimulation and thought. I would hope most people's bathroom habits are not so complicated.

 

 

So would you teach a toddler how to construct a wind tower before or after they potty train? ;)

Edited September 17, 2009 by LibraryLover

[Impish]

That's what I thought was being discussed too - and I'm the OP!

:lol::lol::lol:

[stripe]

So would you teach a toddler how to construct a wind tower before or after they potty train? ;)

I didn't think we were discussing toddlers; I thought we were discussing education. You were the one who brought in toilet training, so I assumed that you saw some connection to education. Since I don't, I invite you to draw the connection, instead of challenging me to figure out if it's a relevant comparison.

 

For the record, I have no idea how to construct a wind tower. But this boy taught himself and built one at age 14: The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind: Creating Currents of Electricity and Hope by William Kamkwamba.

[LibraryLover]

I didn't think we were discussing toddlers; I thought we were discussing education. You were the one who brought in toilet training, so I assumed that you saw some connection to education. Since I don't, I invite you to draw the connection, instead of challenging me to figure out if it's a relevant comparison.

 

For the record, I have no idea how to construct a wind tower. But this boy taught himself and built one at age 14: The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind: Creating Currents of Electricity and Hope by William Kamkwamba.

 

 

14 is not 2, am I right? lol

 

Do you believe in cognitive development?

Edited September 18, 2009 by LibraryLover

[WishboneDawn]

 

1. Perhaps I'm anal (my friend that I started out discussing in the first post, says that I am:001_smile:) but I have this feeling that everyone should know some of the basics of physics or chemistry. So much of our lives are governed by ideas like magnetism, gravity, friction, molecules and different chemicals. . . I guess I feel like a liberal arts approach gives you a certain "literacy" - not just in reading but in culture, science, and math.

 

I'm not MommyRyan obviously but in regards to the topics your mentioned, how could a halfway engaged and curious kid possibly miss learning about them? As you said, so much of our lives are governed by those ideas and forces, how could somebody not gain a reasonable understanding of them just by keeping their eyes open and their minds in action as they go through life?

 

Now I admit I am pursuing something more of a liberal arts education now for my kids but the unschooler in me won't go away and keeps pointing out that so much of what I now approach through more formal means was stuff the kids still encountered when we unschooled.