Reasons against a liberal arts education?

[LibraryLover]

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.

 

Like when the 4 yr old is building with blocks, they fall down, and he laments, "Gravity! Again!". True story.

[Caitilin]

Can't think of any!:D

 

The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time.

--Sydney J. Harris

[Jean in Newcastle]

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.

 

Well, curious kids in our house did learn about these topics quite a bit during their toddler and pre-school years. (And I really mean this - this is not snark.) But by the time they were in the grammar stage, they needed to learn more about the connection of things. Personally, I would not have learned the connection between gravity and magnetism, for example, without doing specific experiments - ones that did not come up through normal exploration. Now we did not actually use a formal textbook until later years. But we did purposeful reading and experimenting that helped us to make connections between things. And while my children are very curious and motivated, they still would not have necessarily chosen (or known to choose) all the topics that I think they should know about.

 

In science anyway, I feel like the toddler/pre-school years set the stage with free play and exploration. A lot of basic everyday vocabulary is learned at this stage.

 

In the grammar years we built on what they had already explored. We read living books and did purposeful experiments that helped them to learn more specific vocabulary and make connections between things.

 

In the logic years we got more formal in the sense that I started to require that they retain a specific body of knowledge.

 

We're not at the rhetoric years yet but I assume that we will continue to build by pulling together the different math, science and even history information that we've learned to recreate famous experiments of the past and to make up new avenues of exploration of our own.

 

I am interested in the many people who have said that you could pick things up later if they are interested. I do admit the validity of that. But I wonder if many wouldn't miss out on certain things because they would just never get around to it. Or if they would miss out on the experience of having a supposedly boring subject turn out to be very interesting once you started to delve into it.

[eternalknot]

 

I am interested in the many people who have said that you could pick things up later if they are interested. I do admit the validity of that. But I wonder if many wouldn't miss out on certain things because they would just never get around to it. Or if they would miss out on the experience of having a supposedly boring subject turn out to be very interesting once you started to delve into it.

 

They might miss out on things.

 

Would they know it, though? Would it bother them if they didn't know they were missing out? Maybe some it would; others, not. I think lots of people here it would bother (isn't that why we're seeking a specific type of education for our children - the one we find ourselves lacked?) but there are plenty of others who never got a true liberal arts education but don't really notice or otherwise feel like they somehow missed out. Or ARE missing out now.

 

If they never got around to it, would that speak to their priorities and interests - maybe things aren't picked up because even MORE interesting things came up first. (I think this describes me)

 

I think it's a misconception that everybody wants to know much about much. That is, some people (either through circumstance or biological wiring) are actually content to not know x - or to ONLY only y. Some of us find it mentally engaging to expand our minds; others of us might get that stimulation through other avenues (no less mentally engaging, but perhaps not as academically oriented).

[MommyRyan]

I do not feel picked on at all!:) I appreciate your response. I respect your views that people "should" (such a messy word) have a background in physics and chemistry; I, however, just don't see a "well-rounded" or "liberal arts" education through a certain age wholly necessary to function in the "real world" or to have a good education. I think it works well for a lot of people, and I think each of the subjects should be introduced for exposure, but as far as extensive training, I think it's something that was sort of invented to validate an extension of schooling--don't have much history on that. I've always been a "Says who?" kind of person. So when people tell me I or my children "should" know something, I say "says who?". That being said, I understand the value you place on the sciences and in understanding the world around us.

 

In regards to your question about a "liberal arts worldview", I probably did not articulate myself as well as I would have liked. What I meant by that, I guess, is exposure to each of the disciplines, giving us the ability to view the world in different ways: certainly looking at the history of the world, versus a Biblical view, versus literary, versus evolutionary history, versus the mechanics and physics, versus philosophical...it's all different ways of viewing the world we live in, and having a well-rounded perception of the world, to a point, I think, is important. Sorry if that is a little messy and jumbled. Hope that clears things up!

[Lovedtodeath]

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).

:001_huh: Jehovah's Witness here. I feel the need to comment. We are so enraptured with education that if you read the magazines put out by our headquarters you will get the equivalant of a college education in about 7 years. (well, not math :lol:). We have a plethora of researched educational materials printed for us about science, history, religious diversity, human affairs... etc.

 

Actually, where the difference lies is that we are not enraptured with the idea of going to a top college in order to get a full time and then some job with high status and lots of money. We are interested in getting enough education to modestly support ourselves and our families. Sometimes that includes a college degree, or a trade school. :D

 

But on these forums, it seems the goal is different. I will read threads on here about starting Algebra in 7th or 8th so that my kids can get into college, and then I remember what my requirement was for enrolling in college 3 years ago: a diploma, even if it was a GED, it would have gotten me in. ;)

Edited September 18, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

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.

:iagree:Which is why this type of education is perfect for this Jehovah's Witness.

[johnandtinagilbert]

I have seen successful home schoolers, unschooled and (poorly) liberally educated ones. I see great benefit of child-led learning. 3 of my 5 would not follow their own course well as a whole, while 2 would. I try to follow a liberal arts approach and do insist on topics, but I do work hard to find materials that work well for each individual child and choose topics of interest that also fall in the big plan of liberal arts education -- I think big picture these days and use a lib. arts ed. to get the dc to whereever they want to go. My only concern with a non-lib arts education is -- what if they head off to college and they're not prepared. What if it's harder (and college is hard enough) b/c what they hear in class is like a foreign language to them b/c we never even mentioned the topic? Some may find that cowardly...I just can't take that chance.

 

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:

I just wanted to say that there have been times where we slogged and came out happy with what we found. At times, we begin uninterested, but end in delight.

 

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.

:lol::lol::lol: Part of our goal in educating our kids in a liberal arts fashion is to have them prepared for those university courses...whichever courses they choose b/c they're interested in that career field...as much as possible with not only the desire to learn, but the absolute understanding of the labor, sometimes painful, sometimes joyful, that a structured, lib arts education brings.

 

Well, curious kids in our house did learn about these topics quite a bit during their toddler and pre-school years.

 

I am interested in the many people who have said that you could pick things up later if they are interested. I do admit the validity of that. But I wonder if many wouldn't miss out on certain things because they would just never get around to it.

I struggle with the bolded part in my mind. There really is only so much time.

 

Also, I admit that I get irritated at times when they can't function w/o that structure. I am seeing, though, that my 2 teenagers are more naturally motivated to complete what is required and more strongly pursue their deeper interests. Perhaps I am realizing the best of both worlds.

 

Nice discussion, OP...great liberated minds are being revealed this evening...

[johnandtinagilbert]

:001_huh: Jehovah's Witness here. I feel the need to comment. We are so enraptured with education that if you read the magazines put out by our headquarters you will get the equivalant of a college education in about 7 years. (well, not math :lol:). We have a plethora of researched educational materials printed for us about science, history, religious diversity, human affairs... etc.

 

Actually, where the difference lies is that we are not enraptured with the idea of going to a top college in order to get a full time and then some job with high status and lots of money. We are interested in getting enough education to modestly support ourselves and our families. Sometimes that includes a college degree, or a trade school. :D

 

But on these forums, it seems the goal is different. I will read threads on here about starting Algebra in 7th or 8th so that my kids can get into college, and then I remember what my requirement was for enrolling in college 3 years ago: a diploma, even if it was a GED, it would have gotten me in. ;)

 

I hope for college, but would accept trade school. Sometimes the early education is for another important reason...$$$. I won't push the issue on a child who is not capable just to save some green, but if I can have something out of the way (which genuine understanding on dc's part) and a dc can test out...you betcha we're working toward that! I actually view that as a personal responsibility to save my dh, our sole provider, some $$$ and to honor all the years he has busted his hump so I could stay home.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I hope for college, but would accept trade school. Sometimes the early education is for another important reason...$$$. I won't push the issue on a child who is not capable just to save some green, but if I can have something out of the way (which genuine understanding on dc's part) and a dc can test out...you betcha we're working toward that! I actually view that as a personal responsibility to save my dh, our sole provider, some $$$ and to honor all the years he has busted his hump so I could stay home.

Oh, a scholarship, or testing out of a college class you mean? I think my degree was 120 a month for 2 years. It was all correspondence and internship. There are a lot more options than a brick and mortar college with a dorm for 4 years. ;) Edited September 18, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[johnandtinagilbert]

Oh, a scholarship, or testing out of a college class you mean? I think my degree was 120 a month for 2 years. It was all correspondence and internship. There are a lot more options than a brick and mortar college with a dorm for 4 years. ;)

 

No dorm desires here! :001_smile: (Please, Lord, NO!) I do mean scholarship, testing out, dual enrollment (which can be free where we live once dc are 15). Programs here offer a great bit of free college before high school graduation. If they test out of basic classes, I can save. The more I can knock out early, the less I will have to pay for later! I hope to save my dh about $70,000 in college expenses before the 5th one graduates from college -- that's a lot of greenbacks!;)

[Lovedtodeath]

 

No dorm desires here! :001_smile: (Please, Lord, NO!) I do mean scholarship, testing out, dual enrollment (which can be free where we live once dc are 15). Programs here offer a great bit of free college before high school graduation. If they test out of basic classes, I can save. The more I can knock out early, the less I will have to pay for later! I hope to save my dh about $70,000 in college expenses before the 5th one graduates from college -- that's a lot of greenbacks!;)

Cool!

[Jean in Newcastle]

 

Also, I admit that I get irritated at times when they can't function w/o that structure. I am seeing, though, that my 2 teenagers are more naturally motivated to complete what is required and more strongly pursue their deeper interests. Perhaps I am realizing the best of both worlds.

 

 

 

This is my experience too. Our family is externally motivated to get done what is required but the learning doesn't stop there. My dc will then delve deep into their interests. I love it when they do. We are very good at following rabbit trails. But some of our best rabbit trails were introduced through formal study. And some of it was actually formal study that was disliked at first, but once the basics were understood, then all of a sudden lightbulbs flashed on and a new interest was born. There is a reason that we are good friends with this family, despite a difference in educational philosophy. We all love to pursue our interests.

[hornblower]

, 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?.

 

And yet.....

 

"....a filmmaker carried a camera into a crowd of gowned [Harvard] graduates and, at random, posed a simple question: Why is it hotter in summer than in winter?' ... The results.... only two out of the twenty-three ...could answer the question correctly.

 

...

 

...fully half of the seniors who filled out our scientific literacy survey could not correctly answer the question 'What is the difference between an atom and a molecule?'"

 

"We asked a group of two dozen physicists and geologists to explain to us the difference between DNA and RNA.... we found only three who could do so...."

 

from Science Matters - Achieving Scientific Literacy by RM Hazen & J Trefil

 

I think there is a very intriguing little puzzle in education (& in life as a whole). It seems to me that bright, engaged, inquisitive people don't need an awful lot of prodding or instruction. They self-seek, not necessarily all are auto-didacts, but they're motivated.

 

But then there are the rest. The "romantic notion" as it's been called here about being driven to learn, being self-motivated to learn whatever it is we need to know to feel competent in this world, is that we all start out this way & that somewhere along the way, we lose it. The question then would be, why do we lose it & how do we get it back?

 

But I wonder more fundamentally whether some people just ARE like that (sort of like the folks with synesthesia in another thread) and whether some are not.....

[Lovedtodeath]

But then there are the rest. The "romantic notion" as it's been called here about being driven to learn, being self-motivated to learn whatever it is we need to know to feel competent in this world, is that we all start out this way & that somewhere along the way, we lose it. The question then would be, why do we lose it & how do we get it back?

 

But I wonder more fundamentally whether some people just ARE like that (sort of like the folks with synesthesia in another thread) and whether some are not.....

Great thoughts.

[Jean in Newcastle]

It's too much work.

 

LOL! You are always the one I go to though who has done the work ahead of me.

[Impish]

And yet.....

 

"....a filmmaker carried a camera into a crowd of gowned [Harvard] graduates and, at random, posed a simple question: Why is it hotter in summer than in winter?' ... The results.... only two out of the twenty-three ...could answer the question correctly.

 

...

 

...fully half of the seniors who filled out our scientific literacy survey could not correctly answer the question 'What is the difference between an atom and a molecule?'"

 

"We asked a group of two dozen physicists and geologists to explain to us the difference between DNA and RNA.... we found only three who could do so...."

 

from Science Matters - Achieving Scientific Literacy by RM Hazen & J Trefil

 

I think there is a very intriguing little puzzle in education (& in life as a whole). It seems to me that bright, engaged, inquisitive people don't need an awful lot of prodding or instruction. They self-seek, not necessarily all are auto-didacts, but they're motivated.

 

But then there are the rest. The "romantic notion" as it's been called here about being driven to learn, being self-motivated to learn whatever it is we need to know to feel competent in this world, is that we all start out this way & that somewhere along the way, we lose it. The question then would be, why do we lose it & how do we get it back?

 

But I wonder more fundamentally whether some people just ARE like that (sort of like the folks with synesthesia in another thread) and whether some are not.....

I seriously know the answer to that!! I do, I do, I do. :hurray::willy_nilly::thumbup::party::cheers2:

 

Dang. 4%er strikes again!!! :lol::lol::lol:

 

Oh. Should probably mention I knew the answer to the other questions too. But RNA, DNA? Easy!!!

[teragram]

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.

 

:iagree:This is something I'm going to absorb a bit more throughout the day. I find it rather thought provoking.

[sagira]

This is my experience too. Our family is externally motivated to get done what is required but the learning doesn't stop there. My dc will then delve deep into their interests. I love it when they do. We are very good at following rabbit trails. But some of our best rabbit trails were introduced through formal study. And some of it was actually formal study that was disliked at first, but once the basics were understood, then all of a sudden lightbulbs flashed on and a new interest was born. There is a reason that we are good friends with this family, despite a difference in educational philosophy. We all love to pursue our interests.

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head with this post. I agree with Charlotte Mason about offering a child a banquet of mental food. The child is required to taste a little from everything, but is free to get seconds or even thirds from the subjects he likes.

 

On a personal note, one of my favorite books is Jane Eyre. I would have not picked it up and learned from it had I not been forced to find enough pages (we had to find 1,500 to read in English only) to read for high school. I love the fact and I'm proud of the fact that I had to read 71 books for my last year in high school. I see it as a major accomplishment and now I have many old friends to think about and life lessons I can refer back to.

 

A friend of mine who's been homeschooled regrets deeply that her parents left her alone to do her own thing from 5th to about 8th grade, and while she's curious and a good conversationalist, she lacks a lot of basic skills and knowledge that she has never quite mastered yet and finds increasingly difficult to do so (e.g. reading faster, comprehending and retaining everything she reads, advanced math skills, and much content she's lost on). Unfortunately, she has lower self-esteem as a result, feels undereducated and while her Bible knowledge and verses are excellent, she lacks the basics in many things. She sends her eldest to public school and plans to send her youngest too.

Edited September 18, 2009 by sagira

[stripe]

14 is not 2, am I right? lol

 

Do you believe in cognitive development?

Of course 14 is not 2.

 

I simply asked you to explain your claim that potty training is similar in nature to educational. It is not a good discussion technique to constantly ask others to disprove your theory instead of ever explaining yours. So...I await your explanation (now for the third time) of how potty training is just like learning, in the context of k-12 liberal arts or other education of children between 6 and 18 years old.

[LibraryLover]

Of course 14 is not 2.

 

I simply asked you to explain your claim that potty training is similar in nature to educational. It is not a good discussion technique to constantly ask others to disprove your theory instead of ever explaining yours. So...I await your explanation (now for the third time) of how potty training is just like learning, in the context of k-12 liberal arts or other education of children between 6 and 18 years old.

 

 

Delvelopmental readiness and cognitive development *is* what I am talking about wrt to toilet training, and you can extend that to reading. I am not talking about 18 yr olds and I never was. Not sure where you got that. If you've read the whole thread, you will see that I quoted TWTM on the grammar stage, saying nothing about teens.

Edited September 18, 2009 by LibraryLover