Aubrey - LOF/MCT and Classical Education

[Capt_Uhura]

Aubrey wrote:

 

I love LOF. I love MCT. I love them so much that I'm in the process of changing my entire educational philosophy. I love the structure of a classical ed, but it turns out that's not exactly what I want for my dc. I can't put into words what I *do* want yet, but whatever it is, MCT & LOF are the embodiment of it.

 

I am curious about your statement above. Why do you think MCT and LOF do not fit in with a classical education?

 

Capt_Uhura

[Storm Bay]

I'm interested in this, too. We are big fans of LOF and are using a couple of MCT books this year for writing. However, we've been eclectic homechoolers with a classical base/slant for a long time now.

 

I'm interested because I've been asking myself what's so great about reading some of these great and/or lit books. Not that I think they are all bad or a waste of time, but some of them I abhor or at least dislike intensely, no matter how many great book lists they are on. Plus a few other things. We'll always use WTM for some things, but we are constantly modifiying.

[8filltheheart]

I am curious about your statement above. Why do you think MCT and LOF do not fit in with a classical education?

 

Capt_Uhura

 

I'm curious as well. I know nothing about LOF, but I suspect that MCT's lower levels are exactly how I have been teaching my kids for the last 17 yrs b/c Essay is essentially how I have taught every single one of my kids. Using his book simply saves me the aggravation of having to pull together my own samples.

[melissel]

Would you believe I was going to post something similar today about her post in that thread? I've been contemplating it for days now.

 

I sort of agree and can see where Aubrey is coming from, but I'm sure she can explain it better than I can! But Aubrey, if you could, could you talk more about what you're working toward, and how you're getting there? I'd love to hear more about your take on the kind of education you're aiming for.

Edited November 14, 2010 by melissel

[Storm Bay]

I've PM'd Aubrey to let her know this thread is here.

[melissel]

I've PM'd Aubrey to let her know this thread is here.

 

:lol: She's probably totally stressing out over us right now. Nothing like finding a spotlight waiting for you!

 

ETA: I've been trying to think about why the MCT/LOF style of learning feels like it doesn't quite fit with classical. It seems to me that classical education is very streamlined. Very "Here's what you need to learn, and here's how. Take it seriously, buckle down to it, work hard, and you'll learn it." Whereas the MCT/LOF styles are more like, "Here, let me tell you a story. It might be silly and make you laugh, and you'll find your creative juices flowing. I'll ask you some questions as we go along, but you won't even notice, and at the end, you'll discover that you've learned along the way."

 

SWB may completely disagree, and I could be wrong in feeling that this kind of learning is...not incompatible, but...not quite up to the standards? of classical education. But that's my perception. Aubrey might see it differently, and I'd love to hear why.

Edited November 14, 2010 by melissel

[angela in ohio]

:lol: She's probably totally stressing out over us right now. Nothing like finding a spotlight waiting for you!

 

ETA: I've been trying to think about why the MCT/LOF style of learning feels like it doesn't quite fit with classical. It seems to me that classical education is very streamlined. Very "Here's what you need to learn, and here's how. Take it seriously, buckle down to it, work hard, and you'll learn it." Whereas the MCT/LOF styles are more like, "Here, let me tell you a story. It might be silly and make you laugh, and you'll find your creative juices flowing. I'll ask you some questions as we go along, but you won't even notice, and at the end, you'll discover that you've learned along the way."

 

SWB may completely disagree, and I could be wrong in feeling that this kind of learning is...not incompatible, but...not quite up to the standards? of classical education. But that's my perception. Aubrey might see it differently, and I'd love to hear why.

 

But that's more a teaching personality than a question of classical method or not. Classical can be either of the ways you described. Actually, the part about asking questions as you go is exactly classical. :001_smile:

[8filltheheart]

:lol: She's probably totally stressing out over us right now. Nothing like finding a spotlight waiting for you!

 

ETA: I've been trying to think about why the MCT/LOF style of learning feels like it doesn't quite fit with classical. It seems to me that classical education is very streamlined. Very "Here's what you need to learn, and here's how. Take it seriously, buckle down to it, work hard, and you'll learn it." Whereas the MCT/LOF styles are more like, "Here, let me tell you a story. It might be silly and make you laugh, and you'll find your creative juices flowing. I'll ask you some questions as we go along, but you won't even notice, and at the end, you'll discover that you've learned along the way."

 

SWB may completely disagree, and I could be wrong in feeling that this kind of learning is...not incompatible, but...not quite up to the standards? of classical education. But that's my perception. Aubrey might see it differently, and I'd love to hear why.

 

 

That is the antithesis of my view of classical education. To me, classical education is all about learning how to think and evaluate. Knowledge is useless without the ability to analyze b/c it is just a group of facts. It is the understanding behind the knowledge that separates a classical education from modern education.

[freerange]

:lurk5:

[melissel]

But that's more a teaching personality than a question of classical method or not. Classical can be either of the ways you described. Actually, the part about asking questions as you go is exactly classical. :001_smile:

 

That is the antithesis of my view of classical education. To me, classical education is all about learning how to think and evaluate. Knowledge is useless without the ability to analyze b/c it is just a group of facts. It is the understanding behind the knowledge that separates a classical education from modern education.

 

I'm sure you're both right. My perception is probably what it is because we're still in the grammar stage here, and I feel like all the highly recommended classical-oriented products are of the "stuff as much basic knowledge in while you can" variety at this point. In the end, though, I'm like Karin. I'll use use what works for us and lights my DDs up while still keeping a classical model and goals in mind.

[FO4UR]

:bigear: That part of her post stuck out to me too...I'm not sure where she's headed, but I feel like I'm right behind her by a couple of years...I want my dc to have a rigorous classical education, but I want them to enjoy the journey.

 

To me, classical education is all about learning how to think and evaluate. Knowledge is useless without the ability to analyze b/c it is just a group of facts. It is the understanding behind the knowledge that separates a classical education from modern education.

 

:iagree: This is what I'm striving towards.

[Aubrey]

LOL--I love you guys! I've been mostly offline this weekend, working on history. :lol:

 

For clarification--I didn't mean that LOF & MCT are *not* compatible w/ classical education at all--sorry! Instead, they have reminded me of something other than classical education.

 

When I was a kid, I was in ps. The classes were boring, plastic. There were actually whole years devoted to "review." Ugh.

 

Classical education has always appealed to me at least a little, in its rigor, in its *difference* from my experience, in its historical roots, etc.

 

I am not *against* classical ed at all now, but in using MCT esp & LOF as well, I've been reminded of another part of my school experiences: GT classes. I went to an average of a different school every year, so I've seen a lot of GT programs. One thing they had in common was their approach to education--the creativity (but not just for its own sake), problem-based learning, a synthesis of auditory, visual, & kinesthetic approaches to things, an almost religious approach to Bloom's taxonomy.

 

Like I said, I can't really put it into words yet, but...you know on Ever After, when the prince asks the girl, "How can you stand to be so..." I forget the word he uses. Curious or enthusiastic or something. He thinks that it would be exhausting, because if you cared that much about something, you'd have to care that much about everything, & it would drive you mad.

 

This style of learning, whatever it is, has reignited a childhood curiosity I don't remember feeling since 1st or 2nd grade, an enthusiasm that died long ago. I have stayed up most nights for a month now & spent all my weekends reading black & white books (w/out pics) about Ancient China & the geography of India because of this renewed, childlike passion.

 

It doesn't go against the grain of classical ed, *necessarily,* but I do think that some priorities *may* shift & if they do, some families would move a little away from classical ed.

 

Now, I also think that all really good educational philosophies are like cousins, at least, & will therefore have family resemblances between them. A friend of mine was CM & suspicious of classical ed, but as we got to know ea other, we realized that we were doing very similar things for very similar reasons.

 

The best I can do at putting this thing into words is "Unschooling Mom." My kids were in bed w/ me one rainy afternoon last week, reading about Ancient Europe & taking notes when they could have been playing. When we're not even studying the ancients right now--these are just lesson plans for next year.

 

HTH! And thanks, Karin, for pm'ing me!

[Dawn E]

 

I am not *against* classical ed at all now, but in using MCT esp & LOF as well, I've been reminded of another part of my school experiences: GT classes. I went to an average of a different school every year, so I've seen a lot of GT programs. One thing they had in common was their approach to education--the creativity (but not just for its own sake), problem-based learning, a synthesis of auditory, visual, & kinesthetic approaches to things, an almost religious approach to Bloom's taxonomy.

 

 

 

I totally get this. I've been thinking a lot about this as well...those classes lit a fire within me and sustained me through the monotony of the rest of my school time. I want to be able to provide that experience for my children at home, and nothing is stopping me...aside from figuring out exactly what that looks like and how to define it. I too think this is not incompatible with the classical structure and can exist within it as a part. This is one reason why I've added MCT to my lineup...and yet I'm still not able to trust it enough to use it solely. I'll also be adding LoF when we get there. As time goes on maybe I'll be able to figure out this dance. I guess because these classes were just a part of my education and not the whole, I do believe there is benefit in a marriage of sorts (I know you referred to the different philosophies as cousins, but I'm in the south so it's okay :)) rather than an all or nothing. I like the rigor of the classical philosophy...the discipline building it provides. I also think the rich history plan within it as well as the commitment to classical languages provides a depth of creativity I would have thrived on as a child. I just need to learn and grow in my role as a teacher and how to implement these things I want to be a part of our school experience.

[melissel]

I totally get this. I've been thinking a lot about this as well...those classes lit a fire within me and sustained me through the monotony of the rest of my school time. I want to be able to provide that experience for my children at home, and nothing is stopping me...aside from figuring out exactly what that looks like and how to define it. I too think this is not incompatible with the classical structure and can exist within it as a part. This is one reason why I've added MCT to my lineup...and yet I'm still not able to trust it enough to use it solely. I'll also be adding LoF when we get there. As time goes on maybe I'll be able to figure out this dance. I guess because these classes were just a part of my education and not the whole, I do believe there is benefit in a marriage of sorts (I know you referred to the different philosophies as cousins, but I'm in the south so it's okay :)) rather than an all or nothing. I like the rigor of the classical philosophy...the discipline building it provides. I also think the rich history plan within it as well as the commitment to classical languages provides a depth of creativity I would have thrived on as a child. I just need to learn and grow in my role as a teacher and how to implement these things I want to be a part of our school experience.

 

Yes! This. This is what I believe and what I want, and Aubrey, I completely agree with what you've described. Even before the thread that started all this, I was thinking about how the resources people use to teach gifted kids differ from, say, Spelling Workout or Saxon math. I wish I could put my finger on it, but I think you and Dawn are on the right track. My DD8 is not quite ready for LOF or MCT yet (next year, I think), but I wish I could figure out how to teach like this in more areas.

 

It's funny that you mention our school G&T classes, but this week I introduced my DD8 to logic lessons (analogies, grid perplexors, etc.) and she LOVED them! I remember loving them too, and it's been a long time since she was on fire for anything school-related. I'm trying to keep my eyes peeled for more ways to make that happen :D

[8filltheheart]

I am not *against* classical ed at all now, but in using MCT esp & LOF as well, I've been reminded of another part of my school experiences: GT classes. I went to an average of a different school every year, so I've seen a lot of GT programs. One thing they had in common was their approach to education--the creativity (but not just for its own sake), problem-based learning, a synthesis of auditory, visual, & kinesthetic approaches to things, an almost religious approach to Bloom's taxonomy.

 

Like I said, I can't really put it into words yet, but...you know on Ever After, when the prince asks the girl, "How can you stand to be so..." I forget the word he uses. Curious or enthusiastic or something. He thinks that it would be exhausting, because if you cared that much about something, you'd have to care that much about everything, & it would drive you mad.

 

 

 

Now, I also think that all really good educational philosophies are like cousins, at least, & will therefore have family resemblances between them. A friend of mine was CM & suspicious of classical ed, but as we got to know ea other, we realized that we were doing very similar things for very similar reasons.

 

The best I can do at putting this thing into words is "Unschooling Mom." My kids were in bed w/ me one rainy afternoon last week, reading about Ancient Europe & taking notes when they could have been playing. When we're not even studying the ancients right now--these are just lesson plans for next year.

 

 

 

Ok, I now understand what you are saying.

 

I am going to circuitously suggest that classical education is not really a list of items to check off, nor is it grammar/logic/rhetoric stage, nor is it really boxed into any of the modern homeschool books available on the market today.

 

I think those books provide parents a support, a guide, an idea (and trust me......I have met a lot of homeschoolers that could really use one for high school).

 

However, if you research classical education from a historical perspective, it was not even begun until boys (face it, that is who they were educating) were upwards of 9-11. It was all about mental formation, developing logic, etc. They spent much of their time in oratorical competitions; they had to be able to think. If you read Augustine, you can get a sense of what classical ed was like back in the earliest centuries. The Ratio Studiorum is essentially what classical education looked when it was re-introduced by the Jesuits near the end of the 1500s. The 7 liberal arts were divided into the trivium and the quadrivium.

 

(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01760a.htm

 

They are called liberal (Latin liber, free), because they serve the purpose of training the free man, in contrast with the artes illiberales, which are pursued for economic purposes; their aim is to prepare the student not for gaining a livelihood, but for the pursuit of science in the strict sense of the term, i.e. the combination of philosophy and theology known as scholasticism. They are seven in number and may be arranged in two groups, the first embracing grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, in other words, the sciences of language, of oratory, and of logic, better known as the artes sermocinales, or language studies; the second group comprises arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music, i.e. the mathematico-physical disciplines, known as the artes reales, or physicae. The first group is considered to be the elementary group, whence these branches are also called artes triviales, or trivium, i.e. a well-beaten ground like the junction of three roads, or a cross-roads open to all. Contrasted with them we find the mathematical disciplines as artes quadriviales, or quadrivium, or a road with four branches. The seven liberal arts are thus the members of a system of studies which embraces language branches as the lower, the mathematical branches as the intermediate, and science properly so called as the uppermost and terminal grade. Though this system did not receive the distinct development connoted by its name until the Middle Ages, still it extends in the history of pedagogy both backwards and forwards; for while, on the one hand, we meet with it among the classical nations, the Greeks and Romans, and even discover analogous forms as forerunners in the educational system of the ancient Orientals, its influence, on the other hand, has lasted far beyond the Middle Ages, up to the present time.)

 

Modern education which focuses on knowledge is artes illiberales.

 

I think certain classical books push a very knowledge based education, especially at the younger ages. That does not mean they have cornered the definition of real classical education.

 

My ultimate goal for classical education is that of Ignatius: Its education goal is to have individuals achieve “the ultimate end for which they were created.” It is through the interior mental freedom that the spiritual life begins its fulfillment.

 

Only through focusing on higher order cognitive skills does intellectual freedom exist.

Edited November 15, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart

[Capt_Uhura]

:bigear: That part of her post stuck out to me too...I'm not sure where she's headed, but I feel like I'm right behind her by a couple of years...I want my dc to have a rigorous classical education, but I want them to enjoy the journey.

.

 

Have you listened to SWB's THe Joy of Classical Education? She said that when she and her mom went to see the publishers for The Well Trained Mind book, they made a comment about them and classical education by extension being grim, X, and joyless. I can't remember what X was, :lol: I wonder if part of that feeling and I've read it here at this board that others (not folks at this board but other HSers in their community) think classical education is joyless and painful. I know SWB remarked that some things are not negotiable and you just buckle down and do it like math facts and grammar. My first thoughts were "WAIT, grammar is joyful at our house. YOu just haven't met MCT yet!" :D

 

What I have found is that sometimes things aren't "fun" b/c they are challenging. But when you emerge on the other side with a deep understanding you get a lot more satisfaction and enjoyment out of it.

 

I do ask myself if my kids are enjoying the journey. They might not like some of the pit stops along the way but those are a necessary part of the journey. My 5th grader LOVES history and science. Now I'm requiring him to write just a little bit in those content areas and he's not liking that one bit.

 

ANyhow, sorry to the person I quoted if I totally misconstrued your point and went totally off on a tangent. It's early for me to be posting but all 3 of my kids woke me up at 5am.

 

Capt_Uhura

[Capt_Uhura]

I guess because these classes were just a part of my education and not the whole, I do believe there is benefit in a marriage of sorts (I know you referred to the different philosophies as cousins, but I'm in the south so it's okay :)) rather than an all or nothing.

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Capt_Uhura]

Thanks Aubrey for responding and sorry for putting you in the spotlight. :001_smile: I hope you continue to post on this topic as your thoughts come together. Perhaps I don't have a full understanding of what Classical Education means, I've really only read SWB's book on the subject and am now reading The Core: Teaching your child the foundations of classical education by Leigh Bortins, but nothing you said seems different from Classical education. In fact, what you said seems to BE a classical education...igniting that fire, cuddling up on a non-school day studying history.

 

I think part of the issue is that many folks want a manual. SWB tried to give them that manual but in doing so, for many it makes Classical education seem rigid.

 

AARGH my son came in and now I've lost my train of thought. If someone finds it, let me know.

[Capt_Uhura]

The best I can do at putting this thing into words is "Unschooling Mom." My kids were in bed w/ me one rainy afternoon last week, reading about Ancient Europe & taking notes when they could have been playing. When we're not even studying the ancients right now--these are just lesson plans for next year.

 

 

I was thinking about this. I've often thought about the posters that say, they go off on tangents all the time, but they have a core that they do, a path they are following. So for example, you want to learn about Knights in the middle ages? Sure we can do that, but we're still going to continue w/ Ancients for history. So while we're doing Life Science this year, we're still doing some chemistry and some physics. So there is is underlying structure but with many spokes coming out of it. HHmm I don't know.... still mulling over your post. Thanks for making me think about this! :001_smile:

[radiobrain]

I thought that Aubrey's post in the other thread resonated with me as well. Maybe the reason I didn't go on a tangent is that I have never fully bought into the classical apparatus. I like it as a framework, and it is very close to my personal educational philosophy, but I need more wiggle room. I also had never planned on teaching Latin or Greek (roots and stems are enough for me!) and so I thought that if I didn't do that, I could never call myself a true Classicist. ;)

 

I tend to find a little gem in most educational philosophies, and try to incorporate them into my own special brand of home education. Classical is the big umbrella, relaxed/eclectic is the sub category and then each subject has it's own special nook or cranny.

 

I think that MCT and LoF can fit very nicely into a classical education, as both teach serious concepts and at a high level, even while being goofy or whimsical. What I think makes them *appear* to be different is the concept of Classical being so much work or drudgery (which I think is untrue, unless you make it that way), and the fact that MCT and LoF are enjoyable if the kid and parent respond to their type of teaching.

 

I have often said to myself, and other people, that if I could find the Lof & MCT for every subject... I would be set, and I would call it something different... The Quirky Scholar, or The Einstein Education, something silly like that. I love that they are experts in their fields, not in education. The books are the closest I can get to having a graduate college professor mentoring my kids.

 

I do have to agree that MCT and LoF have made me more excited about teaching and learning. I love teaching either of these, where I dread doing others (spelling, anyone?).

[TracyP]

Oooh, nice thread Capt! Aubrey's comment has stuck with me as well as 8Fill's comment about making this hs journey about following your own vision. It has been on my mind for several days.

 

Aubrey, I love your comment about cousins. That is how I feel. I feel like I know which "family" I belong to but I am still trying to find my individual place within that family. My kids have a passion for learning right now and I want to continue that. *I* have a passion for learning. I wonder what happens to suck that passion out of so many? Every 3 year old in the world has an intense desire to learn EVERYTHING about the world. 8Filltheheart, you seem to have found a way to do this all the way through high school. Classical ed seems to have this reputation for being dry, boring, etc. I think it should be the polar opposite. Classical ed should feed the desire to learn - not squelch it. I am thinking out loud and I know I'm rambling but I'm :bigear: as this conversation goes forward.

[Capt_Uhura]

That is the antithesis of my view of classical education. To me, classical education is all about learning how to think and evaluate. Knowledge is useless without the ability to analyze b/c it is just a group of facts. It is the understanding behind the knowledge that separates a classical education from modern education.

 

Yes! What she said! I think SWB's plan is one way to get there but if you deviate from it or her curricula suggestions, it doesn't mean you're not classical.

[FO4UR]

Have you listened to SWB's THe Joy of Classical Education? She said that when she and her mom went to see the publishers for The Well Trained Mind book, they made a comment about them and classical education by extension being grim, X, and joyless. I can't remember what X was, :lol: I wonder if part of that feeling and I've read it here at this board that others (not folks at this board but other HSers in their community) think classical education is joyless and painful. I know SWB remarked that some things are not negotiable and you just buckle down and do it like math facts and grammar. My first thoughts were "WAIT, grammar is joyful at our house. YOu just haven't met MCT yet!" :D

 

What I have found is that sometimes things aren't "fun" b/c they are challenging. But when you emerge on the other side with a deep understanding you get a lot more satisfaction and enjoyment out of it.

 

I do ask myself if my kids are enjoying the journey. They might not like some of the pit stops along the way but those are a necessary part of the journey. My 5th grader LOVES history and science. Now I'm requiring him to write just a little bit in those content areas and he's not liking that one bit.

 

ANyhow, sorry to the person I quoted if I totally misconstrued your point and went totally off on a tangent. It's early for me to be posting but all 3 of my kids woke me up at 5am.

 

Capt_Uhura

 

 

I agree with you. You verbalized my point.:001_smile:

 

When school isn't enjoyable, I take a long hard look at what we are doing. Sometimes it's a discipline issue, sometimes a visual perception issue (with ds7), and sometimes we can postpone something or do it in a different way. I like FLL 1/2 for ex, but it goes over much better if I leave the script and use it as a reminder to me to ask my dc to tell me about verbs, read them a good poem, and use proper grammar in speech. (Actually, dd5 loves the "schoolishness" of the script so I sometimes do it for her...even though I don't require her to do grammar at all.) I am waiting patiently until my dc are ready for MCT.

 

Aubrey - Over the summer, I had a crate full of American History books that I was using to plan out a unit study. My dc raided the crate and we ended up reading, reading, reading almost all of those books...saved me some planning.:tongue_smilie: I want to avoid squelching that. It was very "unschoolish," yet it wouldn't have happened if they didn't see me sit down with piles of beautiful books around me, writing in my notebook. Monkey - see, Monkey - do.

 

8FilltheHeart - I am always :bigear: to your posts. The thread on interest driven education (and real tea time) sticks with me.

[TKDmom]

:lurk5:

 

The original quote from Aubrey caught my eye, as well. I love the way MCT and LoF approach things, but I feel like I'm still feeling my way in the dark for an educational philosophy. It doesn't help that I am OCD enough to feel like I have to check off the boxes to every curriculum that crosses my path. :tongue_smilie:

 

The WTM is the book that convinced me to start homeschooling. When we first started, I bought all the books the SWB recommended. And within 3 months, I dropped most of them. I just felt so "blah" about all of it. Now, I'm coming back to a lot of her recommendations, and they don't feel nearly so dry and boring. For whatever reason a lot of the "fun" factor was lost in translation after my first reading of TWTM. Maybe it's just that the workbooks have to potential really rigid and boring, so it has to be the parent to bring in the fun and allow everyone time to go on bunny trails. For a new homeschooling parent who has just pulled a child out of school mid-year with less than a month of prep time, trying to make school "fun" is a lot to ask. Especially is you've got a bright child who is used to coasting along with no effort, and it's like pulling teeth to get her to do anything that she won't be able to do perfectly the first time. :glare:

 

I probably have an incorrect notion of what classical ed, but sometimes I feel a little bit like I'm moving away from it, b/c I'm trying to learn to trust dc to learn on their own, rather than dictating everything that they do. Was it Socrates who said you can't actually teach anything to a person? I feel like LoF and MCT just tell the story and trust that the child will glean the info they need out of it, without having it shoved down their throats.

 

When I was researching TOG over the last few weeks, I loved how it just has upper grammar children reading and reading. They tell you to trust that your child will learn from that they are reading. When I try to ask my dd comprehension questions, it kills that spark for her. But when I sit in her room at bedtime and let her talk about whatever comes to mind, she floors me with the connections that she makes. My older boy is only starting to get to the point to where he can learn independently, and I'd really like to figure this out soon, so I don't have to have the same battles with him that I've had with my dd.

 

I think I'm rambling. I'm looking forward to reading this thread so that I can clarify my own thoughts on all of this.

Edited November 15, 2010 by bonniebeth4

[TKDmom]

My ultimate goal for classical education is that of Ignatius: Its education goal is to have individuals achieve “the ultimate end for which they were created.†It is through the interior mental freedom that the spiritual life begins its fulfillment.

 

Wow. I think I need to print that and chew on it for a few days. That's the sort of thing that I need to put on the wall so that I can let go of checking the boxes.

 

On the one hand, children need a broad education, and they need to learn to think, so that they can know the "end for which they were created". On the other hand, you cannot fit a square peg into a round hole...

[Capt_Uhura]

:lurk5:

 

Especially is you've got a bright child who is used to coasting along with no effort, and it's like pulling teeth to get her to do anything that she won't be able to do perfectly the first time. :glare: Welcome to my world! Tough isn't it?

 

I probably have an incorrect notion of what classical ed, but sometimes I feel a little bit like I'm moving away from it, b/c I'm trying to learn to trust dc to learn on their own, rather than dictating everything that they do.

 

Have you listened to SWB's Independence MP3? I was quite surprised the level of independence she described. I'm slowly working on it w/ my 5th grader...trying to turn over ownership of his education to him.

 

It's such a tough road. On the one hand, my kids have a large knowledge base b/c of reading and discussions with family. On the other hand, it takes time to get those skills done (grammar, writing, math, spelling, dictation). Sometimes, I feel like we're not reading enough. I'm now instituting a 30min science reading daily in addition to our regularly scheduled program (CPO Life Science). We recently moved and I just unpacked our lit books. I found all of the wonderful books I have purchased for math...Penrose the Mathematical Cat, The Man Who Counted, etc and I wonder, when will we ever have time to read them on top of all of our other reading?

[NineChoirs]

Which program is being referred to as MCT? I must admit I love LoF, not just the book itself but the type of learning it promotes. I am looking for other similar programs for my daughter. I am trying to put together a strong Liberal Arts program for her.

[Capt_Uhura]

:lurk5:

 

The WTM is the book that convinced me to start homeschooling. When we first started, I bought all the books the SWB recommended. And within 3 months, I dropped most of them. I just felt so "blah" about all of it. Now, I'm coming back to a lot of her recommendations, and they don't feel nearly so dry and boring. For whatever reason a lot of the "fun" factor was lost in translation after my first reading of TWTM. Maybe it's just that the workbooks have to potential really rigid and boring, so it has to be the parent to bring in the fun and allow everyone time to go on bunny trails.

 

I think sometimes it is in the implementation. I know I surely thought grammar was boring. We did GWG and checked the box. Then I discovered MCT and a whole new world opened up for us. But I bet there are folks out there which find MCT boring or can make MCT boring if they don't share his vision. We end up having a discussion for 30min to an hour! Others might find GWG more exciting in that they can get it done in 10min and then play for 50min! Or they might think like MCT and give that spin to GWG naturally and therefore take a curriculum which I thought was boring into something that comes alive!" I would bet that person is 8FillstheHeart! :001_smile:

[Capt_Uhura]

MCT are the initials of the author, Michael Clay Thompson, who wrote a language arts curriclum called MCT Language Arts. You can find it at http://www.RFWP.com (RFWP=Royal Fireworks Press).

[Storm Bay]

Like I said, I can't really put it into words yet, but...you know on Ever After, when the prince asks the girl, "How can you stand to be so..." I forget the word he uses. Curious or enthusiastic or something. He thinks that it would be exhausting, because if you cared that much about something, you'd have to care that much about everything, & it would drive you mad.

 

This style of learning, whatever it is, has reignited a childhood curiosity I don't remember feeling since 1st or 2nd grade, an enthusiasm that died long ago. I have stayed up most nights for a month now & spent all my weekends reading black & white books (w/out pics) about Ancient China & the geography of India because of this renewed, childlike passion.

 

 

My ultimate goal for classical education is that of Ignatius: Its education goal is to have individuals achieve “the ultimate end for which they were created.” It is through the interior mental freedom that the spiritual life begins its fulfillment.

 

Only through focusing on higher order cognitive skills does intellectual freedom exist.

 

Great reply. I've been rethinking our education as well. Dd, 12, has loved history until this year when all the books we've used have been b&w. Dd is an artist, whether or not she becomes one as a profession. While pictures were distracting when she was learning to read, readng history without pictures is dry for her now that she's well past SOTW but not ready for SWB's older history books. We can change how she studies history and still focus on higher order cognitive skills.

 

I just read Doing School which questions the value of grades based education and the lack of depth in ps (this is among mainly honours students). I've found myself getting drawn into this type of education this as well, particularly with my eldest who had told me in the summer that she wanted to go to ps starting in her junior year (she started last week).

 

I've never seen Ever After, though, so don't know that reference.

 

What this comes down to for me in regard to the great books is what I've been thinking of for some time; we'll pick and choose. There's no need to get those lists all in. Rather, we'll focus on a few carefully chosen ones. Some of the key areas lacking in ps are deep thinking, logic, etc. Even doing proof in Geometry and Algebra aren't enough all by themselves. Another thing is keeping up the love of learning. The challenge lies in getting the right balance between necessary knowledge (math, grammar, etc) and pursuing things in more engaging ways.

 

My hour is nearly done. As of today I need to get back to strict computer rules again (nearly over being sick, dd all set in ps so far.)

[NineChoirs]

I figured it out, thanks for the link though. :001_smile:

[Storm Bay]

Which program is being referred to as MCT? I must admit I love LoF, not just the book itself but the type of learning it promotes. I am looking for other similar programs for my daughter. I am trying to put together a strong Liberal Arts program for her.

 

MCT are the initials of the author, Michael Clay Thompson, who wrote a language arts curriclum called MCT Language Arts. You can find it at www.RFWP.com (RFWP=Royal Fireworks Press).

 

They're similar and yet different. I really enjoy the way he uses the story of Fishmeal in Paragraph Town. Essay Voyage, OTOH, doesn't tell a story like that. It's still a great book. I'm planning to get the grammar for ds when my budget allows, because diagramming is not working for him the way it did for my dds. I'm not sure if I'll get him town or voyage yet.

[Aubrey]

I have often said to myself, and other people, that if I could find the Lof & MCT for every subject... I would be set, and I would call it something different... The Quirky Scholar, or The Einstein Education, something silly like that. I love that they are experts in their fields, not in education. The books are the closest I can get to having a graduate college professor mentoring my kids.

 

I do have to agree that MCT and LoF have made me more excited about teaching and learning. I love teaching either of these, where I dread doing others (spelling, anyone?).

 

That's what I'm working on, w/ all my history reading. It's not silly, goofy, creative *for its own sake,* imo, but working at the level of the imagination, very much like Einstein's "brain experiments." For the personality that fits this style, it is very serious work; to others, it looks extremely superfluous & silly.

[Aubrey]

I was thinking about this. I've often thought about the posters that say, they go off on tangents all the time, but they have a core that they do, a path they are following. So for example, you want to learn about Knights in the middle ages? Sure we can do that, but we're still going to continue w/ Ancients for history. So while we're doing Life Science this year, we're still doing some chemistry and some physics. So there is is underlying structure but with many spokes coming out of it. HHmm I don't know.... still mulling over your post. Thanks for making me think about this! :001_smile:

 

Let me say again: I do NOT think MCT & LOF are incongruent w/ classical ed. I think classical ed is awesome.

 

Imagine a Thanksgiving meal, w/ turkey as the centerpiece, the "plan," the main dish. The Turkey. You've got all the other side dishes that are traditional in your family--maybe a squash casserole, a green bean casserole, some cranberry sauce, homemade bread. Beautiful meal, turkey at the center.

 

Then let's say, you don't become vegetarian--then the turkey would be omitted entirely, would be "bad." Instead, you simply decide to be more vegetable-focused in your life. You make sure the vegetables on your plate are proportionately greater than the meat on your plate.

 

It's the same food. You might even end up with the same proportions. BUT you got there for different reasons.

 

If you choose "classical" materials just because they have that label, you could end up with boring, dry material. If you choose another curric just because it's "fun," you could end up w/ an incomplete education. (It would be really helpful here if I had a term for that other stuff, but alas! I do not.) ;)

 

SOTW can be chosen for classical reasons--that's why I've chosen it so far. But I think it can be chosen for MCT reasons as well.

 

Karen--as far as true classical ed not starting until 9-11, I can see that. I mean, I think the foundations laid prior to that are important, but the shift in the way ds is thinking, the level of creativity his brain permits now, is *different.*

 

And the main difference I'm describing is really a personality one more than a fundamental educational difference. I *do* think these two ideas will often result in similar educations. But whereas classical would never miss an Austen novel or a Shakespeare play, the other thing will have some sci-fi ("Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?") slipped in there with the classics. (Not this novel or genre in particular, just a wider scope than staunch "classics.")

[Aubrey]

Great reply. I've been rethinking our education as well. Dd, 12, has loved history until this year when all the books we've used have been b&w. Dd is an artist, whether or not she becomes one as a profession. While pictures were distracting when she was learning to read, readng history without pictures is dry for her now that she's well past SOTW but not ready for SWB's older history books. We can change how she studies history and still focus on higher order cognitive skills.

 

Everything I'm learning about history, I'm learning from children's books. I like the Usborne style, heavy on pics, low on text. That sounds very anti-intellectual, but there it is. If I had to read history from the adult side of the library, I wouldn't be reading it.

 

That said, I've been taking a rolly-cart full of history books (that *I* am reading) w/ me everywhere I go lately. I was sitting in a coffee shop this weekend, reading about ancient Egypt, when this old, old man at another table started staring. He'd look at me, then at my books. Finally, he moved to the other side of the table (closer to my table) & stared harder.

 

He asked if he could look at the one on top (about Native Americans). Two of his friends showed up while he was looking at it. Together, they spent at least 20 min on that book, discussing it in what sounded like Hebrew, before they returned it & started eyeing the rest. I think those 3 old men skimmed through 20 books that morning.

 

I'm not sure what my point is. Putting pictures in history books & bringing the reading level down to where the *content* is the point has a unifying effect, imo. It has brought my kids & a group of old men into a circle of joyous passion with me.

 

They got really excited about one about the Trojan Horse, & I could understand the word "Troy." I could also understand the ancient smile, the giddy excitement like a child, & the pointing.

 

I've never seen Ever After, though, so don't know that reference.

 

This is the only movie I've ever seen TWICE *at the theater.* It's that good. You should make it a TOP priority. :D

 

What this comes down to for me in regard to the great books is what I've been thinking of for some time; we'll pick and choose. There's no need to get those lists all in. Rather, we'll focus on a few carefully chosen ones. Some of the key areas lacking in ps are deep thinking, logic, etc. Even doing proof in Geometry and Algebra aren't enough all by themselves. Another thing is keeping up the love of learning. The challenge lies in getting the right balance between necessary knowledge (math, grammar, etc) and pursuing things in more engaging ways.

 

My hour is nearly done. As of today I need to get back to strict computer rules again (nearly over being sick, dd all set in ps so far.)

 

I don't think it's just *what* you read, but how you read it, too. We staged paper-wad fights between the Montagues & the Capulets in the highschool English class I taught, w/ the two names "tagged" on the walls behind.

 

We "fought" the Balkan wars on the sofa w/ stuffed animals & the ottoman (hehehe) turned to be a peninsula. I *know* classical moms do this. It's (often) the same plate as the other Thanksgiving meal, just for different reasons.

 

I took AP English my sr yr. I LOVED that class. But there was a different personality among the students there & the students in GT. It's that personality difference I'm talking about. Both groups are intelligent, both groups work hard (in their own way), but ime, the 2 groups do not get along all that well.

[Aludlam]

8FilltheHeart - I am always :bigear: to your posts. The thread on interest driven education (and real tea time) sticks with me.

 

Could someone point me to this thread? I can't seem to find it. thanks!

[Capt_Uhura]

And the main difference I'm describing is really a personality one more than a fundamental educational difference. I *do* think these two ideas will often result in similar educations. But whereas classical would never miss an Austen novel or a Shakespeare play, the other thing will have some sci-fi ("Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?") slipped in there with the classics. (Not this novel or genre in particular, just a wider scope than staunch "classics.")

 

 

Would classical education never miss an Austen novel or a Shakespeare play? SWB was pretty adamant that Classical Ed wasn't a list of books read and that any list of classical books will differ.

 

I think in these conversations we end up discussing semantics rather than any real difference in philosophy. I love your analogy of a Thanksgiving meal!!!

 

One thing I"ve been mulling over is that I've read here that classical is very humanities focused and where do science/math families fit in? I was just listening, yet again, to SWB's MP3s and in it, she says that today HSing families often do not spend near enough time on science and math. I know my friend certainly got the idea that science and math were not emphasized. She was shocked when I told her about the MP3 and even more shocked when SWB recommended dropping history in high school so DC can focus more heavily on science/math. So I see that as not making the turkey the center of the meal but rather a small portion of it, letting the vegetables take center stage. You can do your critical thinking, logic in history or you can do it in science, or archaeology, or paleontology. Any one of those is no less classical than the humanities focused one...it's all about how you approach, the road taken to get there.

 

My son takes an archaeology class w/ a professor. He said that his goal is to teach critical thinking, observation, synthesis, logic .... his method uses archaeology but you can do it in any discipline but he chooses archaeology since he's an archaeologist. :lol:

[TKDmom]

Have you listened to SWB's Independence MP3? I was quite surprised the level of independence she described. I'm slowly working on it w/ my 5th grader...trying to turn over ownership of his education to him.

 

Yes. I need to listen to it again. Mine are all still in grammar stage, but I've found some degree of independence for them just by implementing workboxes. At least they know what to do next, without relying on me.

[Capt_Uhura]

Everything I'm learning about history, I'm learning from children's books. I like the Usborne style, heavy on pics, low on text. That sounds very anti-intellectual, but there it is. If I had to read history from the adult side of the library, I wouldn't be reading it.

 

I'm totally with you here! I love reading the grammar stage and logic stage history books. I love the pictures! I look at SWB's rhetoric/adult Ancients or Middle AGes book and I groan lol.

 

He asked if he could look at the one on top (about Native Americans). Two of his friends showed up while he was looking at it. Together, they spent at least 20 min on that book, discussing it in what sounded like Hebrew, before they returned it & started eyeing the rest. I think those 3 old men skimmed through 20 books that morning.

 

Thank you so much for sharing that story. It made my day! Wonderful wonderful wonderful!

 

I don't think it's just *what* you read, but how you read it, too. We staged paper-wad fights between the Montagues & the Capulets in the highschool English class I taught, w/ the two names "tagged" on the walls behind.

 

:iagree:

 

I took AP English my sr yr. I LOVED that class. But there was a different personality among the students there & the students in GT. It's that personality difference I'm talking about. Both groups are intelligent, both groups work hard (in their own way), but ime, the 2 groups do not get along all that well.

 

The 2 groups to which you are referring at the AP students and the GT students? Can you further describe the personality differences?

 

Capt_Uhura

[Dawn E]

I took AP English my sr yr. I LOVED that class. But there was a different personality among the students there & the students in GT. It's that personality difference I'm talking about. Both groups are intelligent, both groups work hard (in their own way), but ime, the 2 groups do not get along all that well.

 

And this is another point that has me pondering. In my AP English class there was a mix of my former GT classmates (we didn't have high school GT classes in my school) and other students. The other students typically got their high grades by focus, determination and study. One of the downfalls of the GT crew was that things often came too easily. It was easy to pass the tests without even reading the books sometimes. I know this is not the case with all GT students, but I know that DH and I often skirted by giving the least possible effort and receiving high grades nonetheless.

 

I want a balance between things that are delightful to learn with and things that have to be worked at, things that may be a bit dry at times. The GT classes were fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants fun. They were challenging, but in a temporary way generally...not in a way that inspires sticktuitiveness (I like making up words :)). *edited to add I apparently just like misspelling words--sticktoitiveness has already been created* So, my goal is two-fold--to inspire my children to great heights and to teach them the benefit of hard work and commitment. This is why I think I'm more into morphing a combination between the two philosophies rather than creating a new one.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Dawn E

[8filltheheart]

The 2 groups to which you are referring at the AP students and the GT students? Can you further describe the personality differences?

 

Capt_Uhura

 

I'm wondering about this one, too! ;) :D

 

I have been spending a lot of time lately thinking about my own kids. I have never had any of them tested except for our Aspie and the testing is what finally allowed us to have a firm diagnosis. But, my some of the my other kids I do wonder about. I know that at least 2 of them (my 3rd and 6th graders) are very accelerated, but are they what would be classified as gifted? I have always known that our 14 yos sees the world differently and processes information differently. I have always known that he was very good in math and science. Last yr based on the ACT scores he made while trying to qualify for CTY, I am guessing that he is definitely classified as gifted since he blew away the scores needed to qualify.

 

But, honestly, I would guess that my daughters would probably test equally well but in different categories (higher in the LA categories vs. the math). It doesn't change anything *I* do b/c I simply teach them whatever why they need to be taught. I can't imagine that being accelerated vs. being gifted would mean that they would interact that much differently with others. :confused:

 

I think that my ds is able to engage in abstract conversations about math that most mere mortals could careless about :tongue_smilie: but he'll happily have them with anyone willing to listen. :lol:

[8filltheheart]

Could someone point me to this thread? I can't seem to find it. thanks!

 

:blushing: I am embarrassed, you know. :blushing:

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173293&highlight=tea

 

Thank you for the ego boost this morning. :001_smile:

[melissel]

:blushing: I am embarrassed, you know. :blushing:

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173293&highlight=tea

 

Thank you for the ego boost this morning. :001_smile:

 

Well, it's only the best thread on the board! :D

[Dawn E]

:blushing: I am embarrassed, you know. :blushing:

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173293&highlight=tea

 

Thank you for the ego boost this morning. :001_smile:

 

I must get off this computer and get work accomplished...but I'm looking forward to coming back and reading this. I, too, have always valued your posts and know I have much to glean from your wisdom. I'm glad to know there is this treasure-trove thread I never knew existed. :)

[Mandy in TN]

And this is another point that has me pondering. In my AP English class there was a mix of my former GT classmates (we didn't have high school GT classes in my school) and other students. The other students typically got their high grades by focus, determination and study. One of the downfalls of the GT crew was that things often came too easily. It was easy to pass the tests without even reading the books sometimes. I know this is not the case with all GT students, but I know that DH and I often skirted by giving the least possible effort and receiving high grades nonetheless.

 

I want a balance between things that are delightful to learn with and things that have to be worked at, things that may be a bit dry at times. The GT classes were fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants fun. They were challenging, but in a temporary way generally...not in a way that inspires sticktuitiveness (I like making up words :)). *edited to add I apparently just like misspelling words--sticktoitiveness has already been created* So, my goal is two-fold--to inspire my children to great heights and to teach them the benefit of hard work and commitment. This is why I think I'm more into morphing a combination between the two philosophies rather than creating a new one.

:iagree:I'm there. Could you describe what you are doing to meet these goals?

Mandy

[Aubrey]

Would classical education never miss an Austen novel or a Shakespeare play? SWB was pretty adamant that Classical Ed wasn't a list of books read and that any list of classical books will differ.

 

I don't mean that classical ed is a reading list. I *do* mean that a classical ed would not be likely to skip one of the more important authors, such as Shakespeare. I'd be surprised to find someone who calls themselves classical requiring A Wrinkle in Time or Stars My Destination or The House on Mango Street. (I'm not saying either of those should be required reading, either--just examples.)

[Aubrey]

And this is another point that has me pondering. In my AP English class there was a mix of my former GT classmates (we didn't have high school GT classes in my school)

 

Imo, this is a common failure of GT programs today. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the needs of these students, & so they are lumped w/ honors/AP classes.

 

and other students. The other students typically got their high grades by focus, determination and study. One of the downfalls of the GT crew was that things often came too easily. It was easy to pass the tests without even reading the books sometimes. I know this is not the case with all GT students, but I know that DH and I often skirted by giving the least possible effort and receiving high grades nonetheless.

 

This is what I mean about the dissonance between AP & GT. You have articulated very well what AP students think of GT students. Imo, this is the heart of the difference between classical & what I'm describing. Classical appears to be a solid education that teaches discipline & other noble traits necessary to being a productive citizen. A GT approach looks like silliness to those who espouse an AP approach.

 

In choosing either one, it comes across as a judgment of the other group. AP people, ime, have *always* thought that GT kids were lazy, goofy, etc. The personalities are completely in conflict.

 

I think the result is that GT people feel that they have to either a) defend their differences to the AP crowd or b) adopt some form of sarcasm or dry humor. It is the latter that often makes them appear to not take things seriously, I think.

 

Now I need to clarify. I said that a classical ed "appears" to be good in various ways. I do not mean that it is not good *at all,* but simply that the pattern of thinking used by AP people will cause them to adopt whatever method of ed appears to be logically the best. (And most people here are saying, "Um...yeah...?)

 

GT people can't help questioning the most obvious things. They can't help reinventing the wheel. They can't help turning a history assignment into an art project or a game. *Some* of that reinforces ideas for anyone, but it can seem "projecty" & less important to others. Or, people who misunderstand can think that simply adding projects or extra reading will satisfy a GT student. (Not an adv student; the difference is not the level of intelligence but the *shape* of the peg!)

 

I'd say that the difference is the need to solve problems themselves. An AP student wants to know what the essential ideas are, wants to understand, for ex, why the Egyptian culture was important to the ancient world. I'd compare this to an outline, whether or not the student *enjoys* outlining, they'd see the importance of the structure.

 

GT students, by contrast, would want to create their own culture, try to solve the problems presented by the level of development known to that culture & by *participating* in an ancient culture, come to an understanding of their relationship to & importance in the ancient world.

 

Maybe they're just two different ways up the same mountain. Unfortunately, since both groups are bright & motivated in their own ways, they often end up in competition to prove which one is smarter, & that's how they end up not getting along. One group equates their version of hard work w/ intelligence because it results in a certain kind of success. The other group equates their version of creativity w/ intelligence because they're working from an entirely different schema from the rest of the world, for better or worse. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

I want a balance between things that are delightful to learn with and things that have to be worked at, things that may be a bit dry at times. The GT classes were fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants fun. They were challenging, but in a temporary way generally...not in a way that inspires sticktuitiveness (I like making up words :)). *edited to add I apparently just like misspelling words--sticktoitiveness has already been created* So, my goal is two-fold--to inspire my children to great heights and to teach them the benefit of hard work and commitment. This is why I think I'm more into morphing a combination between the two philosophies rather than creating a new one.

 

I completely understand. I imagine you'd feel insulted to be labeled "GT" because in your experience, it means lack of serious attention to something whereas AP in no way limits creativity. Imo, that is going to look like classical ed in your home. :001_smile:

[Dawn E]

:iagree:I'm there. Could you describe what you are doing to meet these goals?

Mandy

 

I have no idea how to meet these goals! I'm still trying to figure it out. I love and strive for inspiring creativity in all subjects, but I'm not ready to cut out what others view as monotonous and dry simply because I do feel that in life there are lots of things that you have to do not because you want to or enjoy it, but because you have to. That kind of character training has to come from somewhere. It doesn't necessarily have to come during the education side, I guess. I'm still just trying to figure it all out, too. :)

[Dawn E]

Aubrey, I appreciate your thoughts, but don't think you get where I'm coming from. I wasn't ever embarrassed that things came easily to me, and I understood that those who chided me for it wanted that ability themselves. I was quite proud of and happy with the situation. :)

 

Now that I am an adult I realize that I never received any training in disciplines as a child. Because school was easy, I rarely studied. When I did study I could memorize the material quickly enough with minimal effort. I didn't do any sports. I had a mom who preferred to clean up the house for us rather than have to train us to do things or have things done in a less perfect way than she wanted. I was in band for a minimal amount of time, and I never practiced. Now that things are hard, that there are things that I want to do but don't want to do, I just wish I had more training in those formative years. Of course, this is a character issue, not a educational philosophy issue. I however am trying to set up a path for my daughter that helps her to actually have the tools she needs for future use.

 

She is a bright child and things come easily. As is characteristic of GT children she is sensitive and does think more deeply on topics. Her questions are so multi-layered and deep...and I happily follow the rabbit trails they take us on. I do want to inspire her with materials like MCT, LoF, logic puzzles, problem solving, etc. that will tap into that giftedness side. I want to get those synapses firing and have her feel that great and deep love for digging deep into the intelligence she's been blessed with. But, my journey--and, like you Aubrey, I am just beginning this journey and trying to find my footing--is to find a way to inspire her greatly while fighting against the notion that anything that requires work and commitment (and that may not be fun and inspiring and stimulating on the surface) isn't worth working at and committing to. I don't know how to do this, but my fear with going in a direction that avoids any of those things is to deny her that vital learning. Of course, I could be very wrong in this fear. I'm simply verbalizing my inner journey as we all are.

 

So, I wasn't trying to articulate the AP kids' view of the GT...I'm simply stating a fact from my own experience as a GT student.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Dawn E

[Saille]

That said, I've been taking a rolly-cart full of history books (that *I* am reading) w/ me everywhere I go lately. I was sitting in a coffee shop this weekend, reading about ancient Egypt, when this old, old man at another table started staring. He'd look at me, then at my books. Finally, he moved to the other side of the table (closer to my table) & stared harder.

 

He asked if he could look at the one on top (about Native Americans). Two of his friends showed up while he was looking at it. Together, they spent at least 20 min on that book, discussing it in what sounded like Hebrew, before they returned it & started eyeing the rest. I think those 3 old men skimmed through 20 books that morning.

 

I am in love with this story! You made my day!