Who does NOT do 'classical' ed?

[delaney]

Studying Latin & Greek in college -- when the rigorous demands of a STEM degree are front & center -- is not a prudent use of time. (Speaking of my family's situation only.)

I agree. I don't see paying for it either. You can be well read and still sitting on your hands waiting to get a job. My DH has never read a book cover to cover(thanks to Cliff notes) and is COO of a tech firm. Latin and Greek have little place in his world. His field is growing and changing at a rapid pace and much of the future lies in the tech field.

I want my kids to pursue their interests but let's face it, the starving artist thing may be noble, but it isn't a life many would want. Those who truly seek extra knowledge and to increase their worldliness through the studies of Greek and Latin can surely do that in their own time.

[delaney]

I am not a classical educator. I subscribe to the "Git 'er Done!" philosophy of homeschooling. That translates to an eclectic mix of traditional math and LA, plus lit based history and literature, plus technology based applications for some subjects (spelling, vocabulary, science- Plato Learning). My kids wind up with plenty of time to indulge their passions and develop their individual interests.

Amen sister! Doesn't it come down to that some days!? I also can't let go of the traditional math but have begun shifting my view on history, science, language, and grammar in the early years. I am tired of the grind and the fighting. In the end I want a better relationship with my kids as we learn and grow together.

[ElizaG]

My Dh and I own a company that employs many STEM majors, between the engineers and the chemists, it's practically the whole thing. Our biggest problem is, like Kopff said, finding people who can write.

:iagree:

I haven't listened to this talk yet, but DH here is involved in a lot of hiring decisions in a high tech field, and I get the impression that at the higher levels, technical proficiency isn't usually the limiting factor. It's not even necessarily writing skill. They have to be able to reason clearly -- setting aside personal hang-ups as much as possible -- and work in teams with people from all around the world, with different cultural assumptions.

 

You have to know what you think, and why you think it, and how it works out in a social context, and be able to articulate all this to people with various sorts of personal and ideological baggage of their own. Because as humans, we all come with this baggage. Thus the humanities. And the concepts involved don't tend to be readily visualized. They're more like overlapping and shifting patches of fog, as the physicist and philosopher Stanley Jaki, O.S.B., put it in one of his presentations on science education (pp. 57-73 of this large PDF file). And the way that we're equipped to reason together about these concepts is through the use of words. Thus the language arts.

 

He is 100% behind what we're doing, and wishes he could have had many elements of this education himself. But what's done is done. We want better for our children.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Eleanor
didn't express something clearly ;-)

[ElizaG]

I agree. I don't see paying for it either. You can be well read and still sitting on your hands waiting to get a job. My DH has never read a book cover to cover(thanks to Cliff notes) and is COO of a tech firm. Latin and Greek have little place in his world. His field is growing and changing at a rapid pace and much of the future lies in the tech field.

This debate is nothing new. It was an especially hot topic in the United States around 100 years ago. Not all engineers saw eye to eye on this then, either.

 

Interview with Arthur Thacher, Mining Engineer (Mining and Scientific Press, February 15, 1922)

 

Getting a classical education before studying engineering might seem like a luxury, but I believe it's highly valuable, now more than ever.

[stripe]

Did you listen to Kopff? He is implying that engineer honors students aren't educated -- don't have access to truth -- because 'they can't write' an essay. (This makes me twitch.)

 

Studying Latin & Greek in college -- when the rigorous demands of a STEM degree are front & center -- is not a prudent use of time. (Speaking of my family's situation only.)

 

Here's another issue as I see it. I have a hard time swallowing the idea that most college graduates in, say, English literature, history, and the like have studied Latin and/or Greek and actually have this sort of extensive liberal arts education. On the other hand, I think few people find college graduates in STEM fields to be woefully undereducated. Perhaps their education is lopsided, and errs on the side of their field, but they do know how to think.

 

I'll sum it up this way: I have had people -- and this included graduate professors -- assume I was somewhat stupid (for no particular reason that I could determine! Seemed at times to be a combination of being female plus my regional origins) who immediately changed their style of speech when I informed them what field my undergrad degree was in. People just don't finish their degrees in STEM fields if they can't focus. Unfortunately, I don't have the same experience with many history and English majors. They don't seem to know much about their own fields, much less anything else.

 

So yes, this things are a focus in my home and educational environment. I think you can't fudge that stuff.

[ElizaG]

People just don't finish their degrees in STEM fields if they can't focus. Unfortunately, I don't have the same experience with many history and English majors. They don't seem to know much about their own fields, much less anything else.

I agree with this from what I've observed in my own undergraduate days, and I think the abilities of the average humanities graduate are getting even worse over time.

 

But there is a huge difference between what we studied as English majors in a large research university, and the classical liberal arts curriculum. They are entirely different. I can't even begin to compare them.

[Beth in SW WA]

 

You have to know what you think, and why you think it, and how it works out in a social context, and be able to articulate all this to people with various sorts of personal and ideological baggage of their own.

 

:iagree:

 

I simply claim that classical ed isn't the only path to this 'enlightened' state. Folks all over the world are doing fabulously despite their lack of classical education.

[ElizaG]

:iagree:

 

I simply claim that classical ed isn't the only path to this 'enlightened' state. Folks all over the world are doing fabulously despite their lack of classical education.

I'm sure some are, but we seem to have a lack of them, is all I'm saying. ;) :tongue_smilie:

[Embassy]

Beauty, truth, and excellence can be found in the world of science and math as well.

[ElizaG]

Beauty, truth, and excellence can be found in the world of science and math as well.

We're all living in the same world. I would have thought that would be clear from the information about our family lives that justamouse and I just shared.

 

The question at hand isn't where the most excellence can be found. It's how best to educate young people to live in the world as it is, and as it could be. :)

[stripe]

But there is a huge difference between what we studied as English majors in a large research university, and the classical liberal arts curriculum. They are entirely different. I can't even begin to compare them.

Well, that's okay, as long as they are still well educated in that different something. But it's the "as long as" that worries me.

[slackermom]

If I had to put a label on what we do, I would probably use the term "contemporary classical education," which is the term used by DH's high school. We hope to send DD there eventually, so some of what we do is to prepare DD for that eventuality.

 

This is what they have to say about their curriculum:

 

"The study of languages, literature, art, music, history, as well as ancient and modern cultures provides exposure to the ideas and values that have shaped civilizations throughout the world. The study of mathematics, science, and computers provides the basis for both an understanding of the natural world and a competency in modern technology. Physical and health education help maintain a sound mind and body. These required studies, taken together, are intended to inspire a love for learning, establish a sense of self-worth, and provide the skills needed to pursue further knowledge in college and throughout life."

 

The graduation requirements at that school are:

 

4 years of English (grades 9-12) and a senior research paper

U. S. History

3 years of science

4 years of high school mathematics starting with Algebra 1

4 years of modern foreign language

3 years of Latin (4 years of Latin are required for students who are admitted in grade 7)

 

That seems like a good balance to me.

[justamouse]

Did you listen to Kopff? He is implying that engineer honors students aren't educated -- don't have access to truth -- because 'they can't write' an essay. (This makes me twitch.)

 

Studying Latin & Greek in college -- when the rigorous demands of a STEM degree are front & center -- is not a prudent use of time. (Speaking of my family's situation only.)

 

I'm saying I agree with Kopff, if you graduate with a STEM degree, and we hire you, and then fire you because you can't write? Then you ARE uneducated! They can't write papers. They can't string sentences together! This isn't happening once in a while, this is happening ALL the time. And I'm NOT saying that English majors are any better. They're just as uneducated.

[In2why]

Waiting a year or two may help. When you pick these books again, you may find your children are more receptive to them. My dd read the Beatrix Potter books a year or two later than recommended in most good books list. She still enjoys them at age 7.

 

And before the "classics" are fairy tales, Mother Goose, and children's poetry to be ready for meatier stories. It is a progression.

[In2why]

I'm saying I agree with Kopff, if you graduate with a STEM degree, and we hire you, and then fire you because you can't write? Then you ARE uneducated! They can't write papers. They can't string sentences together! This isn't happening once in a while, this is happening ALL the time. And I'm NOT saying that English majors are any better. They're just as uneducated.

 

I can only agree based on our own experience. My DH is an Electrical Engineer and is brilliant at what he does, but if he had to write, he couldn't. Luckily during the majority of his career he didn't need to, but the year or two before he retired it was an issue. It is part of the trend of people needing versatility.

[SonshineLearner]

So this thread, and the Circe thread have me biting my nails. I'm wondering about my dear son; it's such a huge responsibility to try to prepare children for their post highschool learning!

From what I have absorbed I'm thinking of making sure that I try to take this time that he's young to fill him with and expose him to.... some of the "classical studies" that I want him to know, and expect that during Highschool he'll be studying Math and Science in more detail. And, of course, in our spare time share Science Museums and such with him.

Truly, I would send him to school if I could. I like the one that Beth found around NY I think. At least online it looks wonderful. I'm not enjoying the responsibility I feel. I'd prefer to work full time and send him to someone who has a "been there done that" past. It feels like he's been spinning his wheels waiting to get to the next place that he can speed ahead for a while now....

Why can't it be like the old days where you used Paces and had your kids fill in the multiple choice answers :)

[In2why]

This is my realization, for today, tomorrow I might learn something else that changes my mind totally.

I think when we first begin homeschooling, or our children are young we/I gravitate to classical and even what I consider rigid education. But that's okay, for me is feels right for the grammar stage. It is a time to memorize and build pegs. There are still rabbit trails, read alouds, and fun, but the real focus is the 3R's. Teaching the basic foundation. After those are learned and well established it is easier to find freedom, relax a bit and focus on "virtue" more individualized decisions, the logic stage isn't just for our kids but us as parents as well. We enter the why stage. We have more room to stretch our reasoning, ideas, and goals. Now I am just guessing, because my oldest home educated child is in 7th grade, but after that reality and our child will snap into focus. Is this child math focused, science, language, vocational, military, logical, and what is the final goal? Is this child university bound, do they have a focus, how should high school look. It all comes together and intertwines. Just like a rhetoric stage should. Classic education not only looks different for the child, but also the parent.

 

I don't know how I educate, except by the seat of my pants. I guess eclectic. I try to decide what I want to teach and then how to get there. But sometimes I get excited by new and shiny. I waste money and time.

[Beth in SW WA]

I'm saying I agree with Kopff, if you graduate with a STEM degree, and we hire you, and then fire you because you can't write? Then you ARE uneducated! They can't write papers. They can't string sentences together! This isn't happening once in a while, this is happening ALL the time. And I'm NOT saying that English majors are any better. They're just as uneducated.

 

It's this (above) spirit of intellectual elitism of some classical ed proponents that turns me off. I won't embrace this mentality. Is this an example of beauty & virtue?

 

I'll pass.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Beth in SW WA
clarify

[ElizaG]

I'm not sure what specific thing Beth is referring to, but I think some of us might have different ideas of what elitism is.

 

For instance, when I said that the term "STEM" covers people who have different careers (e.g., pure scientist, engineer, technician) -- and that people being prepared for these careers have historically stopped at different stages on the path of classical education -- some people seemed to think I was saying that technicians were mindless, or something (which I never said, and do not think).

 

And they tried to dispute this supposed claim. How? By pointing out that some technicians they knew had liberal arts degrees, and enjoyed fine food. And that they'd heard of a tradesman who had a PhD in philosophy.

 

That, to me, is elitism: defining people's intelligence and creativity in terms of their academic credentials.

 

Why not value the trades and professions as fully worthwhile human occupations for their own sake, while also valuing classical education -- both for those who go part of the way along, and for those who find themselves (by choice or by specific aptitudes) cut out for a longer journey along that purely academic path?

 

----

 

ETA: I'm reading a biography of St. Thomas More with the children. His father was horrified that he wanted to continue his education at the university and study Greek, etc. He wanted his son to go into the respectable family tradition of practicing law, and not be some sort of disreputable Oxford scholar, LOL. It's all a matter of perspective.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Eleanor

[justamouse]

It's this (above) spirit of intellectual elitism of some classical ed proponents that turns me off. I won't embrace this mentality. Is this an example of beauty & virtue?

 

I'll pass.

 

 

So, you're trying to shame me for saying that we require our scientists to be able to write? And that an adult with a degree should be able to write? You're shaming me for that?

 

OK then.

Edited March 26, 2012 by justamouse

[Beth in SW WA]

So, you're trying to shame me for saying that we require our scientists to be able to write? And that an adult with a degree should be able to write? You're shaming me for that?

 

OK then.

 

You wrote:

They're just as uneducated.

 

If classical ed proponents have the last word on who is educated and who isn't.....then I'll take my toys and go back and play in my own sandbox. A narrow definition of 'educated' doesn't work in my world.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Double post

Edited March 26, 2012 by Alte Veste Academy

[Alte Veste Academy]

So, you're trying to shame me for saying that we require our scientists to be able to write? And that an adult with a degree should be able to write? You're shaming me for that?

 

OK then.

 

 

While I feel that everyone should have a base level of writing ability, I am left thinking that if the scientific mind that can develop a cure for cancer can't write the paper that describes that process, I would hardly consider that person uneducated. Get him/her an assistant who can convey the thoughts articulately but don't be so shallow as to dismiss the genius that is undeniable.

[justamouse]

You wrote:

 

 

If classical ed proponents have the last word on who is educated and who isn't.....then I'll take my toys and go back and play in my own sandbox. A narrow definition of 'educated' doesn't work in my world.

 

If you graduate with a degree and can't write, burn your diploma. For ANY degree.

 

I talk to a LOT of small business people. You apparently do not understand the depth of the problem of kids graduating, applying for jobs and not being able to do the simplest thing. Even the greenhouse owner that came by was bemoaning who he was having to *fire* because they couldn't fill out a purchase order form, that it was filled with spelling mistakes, that they can't *think* without having to talk to the boss every five seconds. This is not just MY impression, this is widespread.

 

If you think a kid who goes into 50k worth of debt for a piece of paper that's not worth a job at a greenhouse, and you think that's elite? If you think that is elitism, go for it. More power to you.

[justamouse]

While I feel that everyone should have a base level of writing ability, I am left thinking that if the scientific mind that can develop a cure for cancer can't write the paper that describes that process, I would hardly consider that person uneducated. Get him/her an assistant who can convey the thoughts articulately but don't be so shallow as to dismiss the genius that is undeniable.

 

And that's just happening everywhere? I don't disagree with you, but you're talking about an outlier.

[ElizaG]

It seems like a strange thing to find offensive.

 

SWB called her books The Well Trained Mind and The Well Educated Mind for a reason. Most of us don't have 'em -- not to the extent we might have, and would have had with the equivalent level of schooling in America in times past.

 

(This is confirmed by the personal letters and school papers I've seen from our family's ancestors, BTW, in comparison to what DH and I were producing at similar ages ourselves. Even though we both had some natural aptitude for language, the lack of solid guidance really showed, and in some situations still does.)

Edited March 26, 2012 by Eleanor
clarity

[Corraleno]

If classical ed proponents have the last word on who is educated and who isn't.....then I'll take my toys and go back and play in my own sandbox. A narrow definition of 'educated' doesn't work in my world.

:iagree:

 

And I think there several incorrect assumptions underlying the argument that engineers and scientists would be better served by a classical education that included less focus on STEM topics. One of these is the equation of a classical education with the ability to write well. The vast majority of people in this world who are excellent writers did not have classical educations, so clearly there are many ways of accomplishing this, other than sacrificing STEM studies in order to study Greek and Latin and read (someone's idea of) Great Books.

 

Secondly, there are people who have had classical educations and who still can't write — my husband is one of them. He had exactly the sort of "rigorous classical education" that people here seem to revere: he attended a private school in Europe, studied years of Latin, French, and German, analyzed "Great Literature," blah blah blah. He feels that he was very poorly served by his education. He remembers nothing of Latin or French and only a little German, and he still can't write well — but he did his doctoral work at Cambridge, and he has patents granted or pending in seven countries.

 

I agree that current school standards have declined significantly in terms of reading and writing — but I would argue that the same is true of standards in science and math. Yes, it's pathetic that so many students graduate HS without being able to write more than a 10-word text to a friend, but I think it's equally pathetic that most students' level of math is barely above prealgebra and few have even the basic comprehension of science necessary to understand current events. I don't really think that more Latin and less science is going to fix the problem.

 

Jackie

[Beth in SW WA]

 

I talk to a LOT of small business people.

 

We own a small business. Dh doesn't ask potential employees for a 15-page essay when he's interviewing them for sales, service, tech or driving positions.

 

I'm weary of this topic. I'm going to peace out for a while. Kids to teach and all that jazz...

Edited March 26, 2012 by Beth in SW WA
typo

[ElizaG]

but I think it's equally pathetic that most students' level of math is barely above prealgebra and few have even the basic comprehension of science necessary to understand current events. I don't really think that more Latin and less science is going to fix the problem.

If they're that lacking in understanding, it sounds as if they can't be learning much of value from the courses they're already taking.

 

I do think it's worth looking at ways to improve the state of math and science education, but I don't think that that necessarily equates to more class time.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Eleanor

[Corraleno]

If they're that lacking in understanding, it sounds as if they can't be learning much of value from the courses they're already taking.

 

I do think it's worth looking at ways to improve the state of math and science education, but I don't think that that necessarily equates to more class time.

But taking time away from other subjects in order to add Greek & Latin will fix the problem of kids not being able to write? :confused:

 

Jackie

[8circles]

I agree that current school standards have declined significantly in terms of reading and writing — but I would argue that the same is true of standards in science and math. Yes, it's pathetic that so many students graduate HS without being able to write more than a 10-word text to a friend, but I think it's equally pathetic that most students' level of math is barely above prealgebra and few have even the basic comprehension of science necessary to understand current events. I don't really think that more Latin and less science is going to fix the problem.

 

Jackie

 

As much as I've enjoyed the circe thread I have to agree with many of the STEM folks here. Jackie, this paragraph is so true. I've been at least equally (but probably moreso) astounded by the innumeracy that I encounter as I have been by those who cannot write. Included in this are many people who consider themselves well-educated in the classical sense. I think education, again while I agree with the sentiments in the CIRCE thread, needs to be balanced & customized for it to be sufficient & truly successful.

[Alte Veste Academy]

And that's just happening everywhere? I don't disagree with you, but you're talking about an outlier.

 

Oh, yes. So sorry. Right you are. I just thought the board was fully committed to hyperbole this week and I wanted to do my part. ;) :tongue_smilie:

[simka2]

And I think there several incorrect assumptions underlying the argument that engineers and scientists would be better served by a classical education that included less focus on STEM topics. One of these is the equation of a classical education with the ability to write well. The vast majority of people in this world who are excellent writers did not have classical educations, so clearly there are many ways of accomplishing this, other than sacrificing STEM studies in order to study Greek and Latin and read (someone's idea of) Great Books.

 

Secondly, there are people who have had classical educations and who still can't write — my husband is one of them. He had exactly the sort of "rigorous classical education" that people here seem to revere: he attended a private school in Europe, studied years of Latin, French, and German, analyzed "Great Literature," blah blah blah. He feels that he was very poorly served by his education. He remembers nothing of Latin or French and only a little German, and he still can't write well — but he did his doctoral work at Cambridge, and he has patents granted or pending in seven countries.

 

I agree that current school standards have declined significantly in terms of reading and writing — but I would argue that the same is true of standards in science and math. Yes, it's pathetic that so many students graduate HS without being able to write more than a 10-word text to a friend, but I think it's equally pathetic that most students' level of math is barely above prealgebra and few have even the basic comprehension of science necessary to understand current events. I don't really think that more Latin and less science is going to fix the problem.

 

Jackie

I agree with a lot of your post. I bolded a few things that I am confused on. I think I missed something in the discussion about either/or in regards STEM and Greek/latin. :confused:

 

 

I do not see this as an either/or issue. The beauty over on the Circe thread was in finding a vision FOR teaching the STEM subjects....as well as the humanities.

 

 

The problem I see in PS is that there is so much required that is not STEM or Classical in nature. Anyhoo, here I go rambling away! ;)

[stripe]

And they tried to dispute this supposed claim. How? By pointing out that some technicians they knew had liberal arts degrees, and enjoyed fine food. And that they'd heard of a tradesman who had a PhD in philosophy.

 

That, to me, is elitism: defining people's intelligence and creativity in terms of their academic credentials.

 

Why not value the trades and professions as fully worthwhile human occupations for their own sake, while also valuing classical education -- both for those who go part of the way along, and for those who find themselves (by choice or by specific aptitudes) cut out for a longer journey along that purely academic path?

Frankly I find this rather insulting.

 

I recommended a BOOK written BY said "tradesman." I neither said that I'd "heard of" him nor that I'd heard someone met him, nor that the mere fact that he had a PhD meant he was somehow better than a regular mechanic.

 

I recommended his book which is about EXACTLY this topic. How working with your hands can -- for some people -- provide an intellectual outlet, whereas many people have denigrated the trades.

 

How working with one's hands and one's mind are not mutually exclusive.

 

I found the book very fascinating, and so do several other people with whom I've discussed the book. And some others who have written about his book, such as Francis Fukuyama, who said “Shop Class as Soulcraft is a beautiful little book about human excellence and the way it is undervalued in contemporary America.”

 

Here's an excerpt from the book jacket:

 

A philosopher / mechanic destroys the pretensions of the high-prestige workplace and makes an irresistible case for working with one’s hands.

 

 

Shop Class as Soulcraft brings alive an experience that was once quite common, but now seems to be receding from society: making and fixing things. Those of us who sit in an office often feel a lack of connection to the material world and find it difficult to say exactly what we do all day. For anyone who felt hustled off to college, then to the cubicle, against their own inclinations and natural bents, Shop Class as Soulcraft seeks to restore the honor of the manual trades as a life worth choosing.

 

 

On both economic and psychological grounds, Crawford questions the educational imperative of turning everyone into a “knowledge worker,” based on a misguided separation of thinking from doing, the work of the hand from that of the mind. Crawford shows us how such a partition, which began a century ago with the assembly line, degrades work for those on both sides of the divide.

But Crawford offers good news as well: the manual trades are very different from the assembly line, and from dumbed-down white collar work as well. They require careful thinking and are punctuated by moments of genuine pleasure. Based on his own experience as an electrician and mechanic, Crawford makes a case for the intrinsic satisfactions and cognitive challenges of manual work. The work of builders and mechanics is secure; it cannot be outsourced, and it cannot be made obsolete. Such work ties us to the local communities in which we live, and instills the pride that comes from doing work that is genuinely useful. A wholly original debut, Shop Class as Soulcraft offers a passionate call for self-reliance and a moving reflection on how we can live concretely in an ever more abstract world.

 

==

Here's an article by the author in the NY Times Magazine:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html?_r=1

[Corraleno]

I agree with a lot of your post. I bolded a few things that I am confused on. I think I missed something in the discussion about either/or in regards STEM and Greek/latin. :confused:

 

I do not see this as an either/or issue. The beauty over on the Circe thread was in finding a vision FOR teaching the STEM subjects....as well as the humanities.

Oh, I agree —I don't see it as an either/or issue — that's really my point. I disagree with the idea that STEM subjects are less important than "classical" ones, I disagree that the push towards improving STEM education in this country is a bad idea, and I disagree with the assumption that focusing on Greek, Latin, and classical literature is necessarily the best way to solve the problem of kids who can't write.

 

Similarly, I strongly disagree with the idea that someone with a PhD in a STEM field who does not write well is therefore by definition "uneducated," while someone who reads Latin but admits to never having taken Algebra II counts as "highly educated." ;)

 

Jackie

[onaclairadeluna]

Gosh I really want to be part of a crowd but I can't call myself STEM focused. I am not sure where the term came from but I just don't like it. I much prefer Math Geek.

 

Actually the focus of my homeschool is music and I find that most college graduates are woefully illiterate in that field. Honestly if you can't play the oboe after 4 years of college then you were wasting your time. Kidding. A little.

 

But in all seriousness, what is in a name. If we are teaching our kids to be awesome, super, well educated, soulful, connected, beautiful adults then isn't that just great. Whether they can play the viola, speak ancient greek, write like Shakespere or prove Fermat's last theorem.

 

Aren't we all elitists. That is why I hang out here anyway.

[stripe]

As I was driving along today there was an ad on the radio for a charter school with an arts focus. I thought to myself, "Gosh, that sounds nice."

 

I agree with you about the STEM thing, makes me feel like everyone should be a botanist.

 

I am trying to convince my kids to solve an unsolved problem in math. I'm thinking maybe, do any odd weird numbers exist? That sounds up their alley. ;)

 

I don't understand what's with the assumption that homeschooling is all about Latin. I have read the joke threads and... my kids are just not really like that.

[ElizaG]

Frankly I find this rather insulting.

 

I recommended a BOOK written BY said "tradesman." I neither said that I'd "heard of" him nor that I'd heard someone met him, nor that the mere fact that he had a PhD meant he was somehow better than a regular mechanic.

If you've read a book written by someone, then it would be correct to say that you've heard of him.

 

Anyway, as for the rest -- sorry, it probably came across wrong, and perhaps I was mixing you up with someone else in places. Several days in, these threads and posts are all starting to blur together. Probably a sign that I need to sign off for a while. Best wishes to all. :001_smile:

[serendipitous journey]

Am thinking of Eleanor's points ... I hope I can clarify, and will try to give references to those things I am familiar with RE

 

Ana... I questioned some of your assertions about Greek education... If you have sources to support your opinions, I'd be interested to see them.

 

Eleanor, I think that here

 

... when I said that the term "STEM" covers people who have different careers (e.g., pure scientist, engineer, technician) -- and that people being prepared for these careers have historically stopped at different stages on the path of classical education -- some people seemed to think I was saying that technicians were mindless, or something (which I never said, and do not think).

 

And they tried to dispute this supposed claim. How? By pointing out that some technicians they knew had liberal arts degrees, and enjoyed fine food. ...

That, to me, is elitism: defining people's intelligence and creativity in terms of their academic credentials. ...

Why not value the trades and professions as fully worthwhile human occupations for their own sake, while also valuing classical education -- both for those who go part of the way along, and for those who find themselves (by choice or by specific aptitudes) cut out for a longer journey along that purely academic path?

 

 

you are thinking of my comments here,

 

 

This is silly. Technology does not equal technician. Good grief.

 

Technician, by the way, is not necessarily a poorly-educated and easily replace automaton: the lab technicians I know have bachelor degrees as a minimum, from liberal arts colleges, love good books and/or good food :) and want, among other things, excellent liberal arts educations for their children.

 

 

 

which refers specially to your comment about the "T" in STEM

...Various technicians = practical workers in industry, historically given a basic 3 R's education and then taught in technical schools or through apprenticeships. There doesn't seem to be much sense in taking our brightest minds, and giving them something closer to the limited vocational education that was previously given to those who showed little promise for academic success, innovation, or leadership.

I apologize for the "automaton" I interjected, which was hyperbolic. My point is that the technicians I actually know have received broad educations, not basic 3 R's education + technical schools. My response in defense of their education to your specific criticism, which was not about their inherent intelligence, but about their ownership of "limited education" and is simply wrong. Or at least, it is no more limited than the educations of humanities folks. The "good books" comment was pointing out that many technicians have the leisure time and the motivation to pursue a liberal education even after they leave college, which is a major goal & concern of the Great Books movement, one large part of modern classicism (see Hutchins' The Great Conversation). The "good food" was silly, and a sort of mental aside to my own family who are convinced that scientists are so caught up in test tubes that they don't care about food, music, art, theater, &c.

 

I feel just sick to think I implied that a person's intellect, education, or any such attribute is a reflection of their worth; or that educational achievement is a measure of ability to think or of creativity or anything like that. I am so sorry.

 

... on to the Greek thing: my argument, in this thread, started with your observations:

 

The thing is, throughout the history of classical education -- from the Greeks onward -- the "whole individual" was taught with an emphasis on qualitative reasoning (the trivium) before graduating to the emphasis on quantitative reasoning (the quadrivium). This is the order of learning that formed so many great mathematicians and scientists. Consider the famous drawing of the tower, with grammar at the bottom and astronomy at the top. It was quite deliberate. During the last 150 years in the United States, educational reforms -- driven by the demands of industry for more innovation and skilled workers, and justified by the desire to boost the national economy -- threw out this order in favor of more math and science courses. If one reads those debates, it's clear that the advocates for this new approach saw themselves as opposed to classical education. They were keen to get rid of the emphasis on the humanities, especially Latin and Greek, which they saw as elitist, old-fashioned, and (worst of all, from their perspective) impractical.

 

to which I responded

 

...I think Eleanor's point regarding the Trivium vs Quadrivium is irrelevant. No classicists here plan to teach the Quadrivium as the pinnacle of their education, and they do include Quadrivium topics during the Trivium -- who waits for a child to master Rhetoric before teaching her Music? The Quadrivium has been completely lopped off the tower. To understand its original primacy would be Another Thread. I think Eleanor's basic point was that the Trivium was mastered before the Quadrivium, so it is perfectly Classical to put rigorous or advanced maths off until post-Trivium; but that point is not well made if she does not accept the full tower herself.

 

Also, basic maths were always taught with basic literacy in the ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman worlds

and you, in turn, replied

 

...No, the whole tower has been neglected. Personally, I would love for my children to have the opportunity to study some version of the traditional Quadrivium, but it doesn't currently exist anywhere in an integrated way, and we aren't in the position of setting it up in our living room. So our children will just have to be content with the separate subjects, to whatever extent they choose to study them in high school, college, and so on indefinitely through a lifetime of learning.

Okay. My conception of the Greek version of the Quadrivium comes from from Plato's Republic, which I understand to be one of the original sources of the concept of "Quadrivium", and it is very, very different to any definition of Quadrivium I have heard you use. I am quite certain it is different to the medieval Quadrivium.

 

First, Plato's Quadrivium, given in book 7, corresponds to: Arithmetic (study of number/magnitude, of the single dimension essentially); Geometry (planar, study of 2-D concepts); Solid Geometry (quite glossed over b/c of the sorry state of current research & gov't funding, Plato says (is this not marvelous? ancient pure-research funding problems!), and mentioned briefly btw. Geometry and Astronomy); and Astronomy, or the study of solids which are moving, roughly 4-D stuff. Music is addressed earlier in the book and along with gymnastics forms the basic education. Music is defined quite broadly as we can see in the root common to "Muse": "...they have neglected her who is the true Muse, the companion of reason and philosophy, and have honoured gymnastic more than music." Practitioners of music include poets, and musical instruction includes literature; there is a dialogue about the importance of exposing children to only the best literature that would be very at home in the current Circe thread.

 

Towards the end of the book, Plato explains that instruction in calculation and geometry should be given to the young, but dialectic reserved for those over thirty. " ... calculation and geometry and all the other elements of instruction, which are a preparation for dialectic, should be presented to the mind in childhood" but the "dear delights" of dialectic need to be reserved for more mature minds; in the hands of children, argumentation will lead to arguing for its own sake and the probable abandonment of all reasonable thought, but "when a man begins to get older, he will no longer be guilty of such insanity; he will imitate the dialectician who is seeking for truth, and not the eristic, who is contradicting for the sake of amusement; and the greater moderation of his character will increase instead of diminishing the honour of the pursuit."

 

Of course the Republic is a proposed basis for an ideal state, not a description of the status quo. But note that: music and gymnasta are given as the current state of introductory education, a place they maintain in Plato's proposal: music is not one of the four arts that leads out of the cave of shadows. The four arts are mathematical/theoretical: Plato acknowledges their practical use, but celebrates them in their theoretical extreme. Thus astronomy does not correspond to modern study of stars, which is mundane and a bit tawdry, but to modern theoretical high-dimensional math (or at least 4-D math) and Plato himself really seems to have expected his students to prepare for philosophy by studying mathematics first, which functioned then as logical training does today: teaching clear thinking and reasoning. Also, throughout the dialogue common reference is made to natural phenomena and the general state of affairs in the world. It is clearly assumed that a generally educated person will have a good command of natural philosophy, the best Greek correspondent to modern science. Whatever astronomy is, an equivalent to a modern, empirical science it certainly is not. Finally, dialectic is an art to be mastered by persons who have already mastered knowledge, philosophy, &c. This is quite opposed to its place as Trivium in preparation for Quadrivium a la Medieval model. .... am out of space, will append briefly below.

Edited March 27, 2012 by serendipitous journey
poor style! bad grammar! misspelled words!

[serendipitous journey]

continuing: the Pythagoreans did have four arts that included music: arithmetic (quantity); music (relationships between quantity); geometry (shape, or magnitude) and astronomy (moving magnitude). There seems to be some doubt that all four were elucidated before Pythagoras' death. There is no Pythagorean Trivium. To my knowledge, at least, which is surely limited :). Aristotle did work on Rhetoric, which he delineated in oppostion to Dialectic (see his Rhetoric), but again no trivium (his triad was ethos (roughly, appeal to character), logos (qualities of the argument itself), and pathos (appeal to emotion), also Rhetoric) that I know of.

 

I hope this was cogent. The point was that that the Quadrivium of ancient Greece is most certainly not the Quadrivium as represented by the medieval tower, on which it sits happily atop a trivium the Greeks never seem to have known about. Certainly I cannot find evidence that the Greeks thought that philosophical understanding was accessible prior to quantitative/theoretical reasoning -- it seems to have gone the other way 'round -- or, more explicitly, for the Greeks clear thinking was taught via geometry, and naturally clear and logical thinking was required before serious philosophy could be grappled with.

 

Trying to critique my own argment, I have to admit that Aristotle wrote extensively on Logic and that of course has a Trivium feel, esp. when you consider that he wrote a book on Rhetoric and thought about Dialectic. Regarding Logic, Aristotle certainly didn't have the explicit reliance on geometry that Plato did, though he wrote extensively on math and it seems clear that his logic has roots in geometric proofs & axioms: so his Logic is less formally tied to geometry, though it seems rooted in it. Regarding the combination of Logic, Rhetoric, and Dialectic, I have found no evidence that Aristotle or his Greek successors has anything like a trivium model; that seems to have arisen from the medieval reading of Aristotle. It is awfully hard for me to find logic, rhetoric, and dialectic mentioned on the same page (conceptually speaking) in Aristotle's corpus, and I'd be happy to hear if someone else can manage it ... if you want refs for all that last bit, PM me and I'll hunt them down this weekend :). Prob. won't get back to this thread for several days, but will try to look for PMs. Am tired! Hope this interests someone!

Edited March 27, 2012 by serendipitous journey

[Mommyfaithe]

My educational philosophy is INFLUENCED by classical ideas, but is more eclectic. Over the years, I'm starting to better understand WHY I deviate from the classical model. And also, interestingly, when I deviate from the current American INTERPRETATION of what is classical, I often realize that I'm actually moving closer to the ancient form of classical.

 

I, on my own, began to radically do LCC, long before the book as written. I knew I wanted to focus on SKILLS rather than CONTENT. Back then I was told that wasn't classical. And I had never gone to college and had no idea what a college classical program looked like. It was just instinctive to me.

 

For awhile I tended to be more STEM, but learned that was an error for ME and MINE :-0 But, back then English was literature and STUDYING it as if it were fact. That made no sense to me. I didn't know that arts have the potential to heal, when not studied like facts. So I just didn't do it. And as for the English skills, no one directed to me to materials that worked. DS was too far "behind" to jump into grade level TWTM suggestions and everything else was trash. No one told me to start WRTR, and a rigorous grade 2 grammar book, with a gifted 12 year old.

 

I didn't know about the Bluedorn and Waldorf style of "delayed academics" and never would have thought of them as classical. But they are.

 

I also didn't know about the differences between a Hebrew and a Greek education. I'm no longer so sure that all of my Hebrew leanings are not classical after all, the more I learn.

 

I think some of us are more classical than we realize sometimes, only to find out later that we were just ULTRAclassical :-)

 

I definitely get this, and it sounds a lot like my journey to educate myself and my children....including, but not limited to my 17 Yo son, who was brain injured by Lyme Disease. He is healing now....and we are pursuing many of his studies from the start...especially math, which somehow glitched in weird places.

 

I am a CM mom with a modern/ Hebraic bent.....

 

Faithe

[stripe]

I've started a thread specifically for those of us with a math or science focus to discuss ideas and gather inspiration:

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=362886

[8filltheheart]

I haven't read the this thread for the most part, so I have no idea where the conversation has gone. I just wanted to post a brief comment that during a conversation w/my dh that made me think about Beth's OP.

 

I have posted multiple times over the last couple of yrs about how much our oldest missed out on by not having the opportunity to do AoPS. He is a very gifted young man, but the exposure to the problem-solving approach in AoPS has taken his equally gifted youngest brother to a different level of cognitive processing. How our youngest son thinks about math and problems is more holistic/creative process. His abilities on "how to think" about problem solving in math have been nurtured, strengthened, deepened by his exposure to the AoPS approach. It is simple reality. (I taught them both and know that their skills are equivalent on the "natural" level.

 

That said.......my swing toward classical approach to Latin and literature is b/c I have witnessed the exact same mental-growth in the language/reasoning skills of my kids via a comparable approach in the language areas of our homeschool. (even w/our youngest math ds......the strongest proponent of classical education in our household.)

 

Anyway, it is why I am firmly planted in the position that it is not "either/or". Both are possible. I have witnessed in both the math and the language areas of my children's cognitive skills. FWIW, my dh is completely hands-off in our homeschool and is clueless as to what goes on. However, I have been listening to so many lectures/etc. that is what prompted our conversation. He told me that he has seen a different level of conversation in the kids. So, it isn't just me. ;)

[serendipitous journey]

I've started a thread specifically for those of us with a math or science focus to discuss ideas and gather inspiration:

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=362886

 

.... thanks, Stripe! and I realize that I've moved off the OP's topic. Sorry ... I did want to address the points raised, but not to hijack Beth's thread.

 

To speak to the OP, I value beauty, truth and goodness but find beauty at least to be a tricky one to aim for, depending on how it's phrased. The need to maintain beauty and harmony is sometimes opposed to the quest to find and speak truth; and I have found rural and "simple" life to be praised for its pastoral beauty by those who have no idea of the bigotries and prejudices that can be fostered there. (I am from a rural community myself, and here I don't mean rural as in modern America, but rural of the times of George Eliot and Middle Ages, when someone who had only ever lived in a small village and been exposed to the ideas available to her there had a necessarily constrained idea of the world and of the range of human personality/expression/etc. Naturally some of those people were broad-minded and liberal of affection. However, the environment wasn't esp. good at fostering this)

 

I conceive of our motto as being: "Joy, discipline, excellence" and we have a focus on developing a deep understanding of and love for the universe and its inhabitants (the human ones esp!), to such a degree that we are well motivated to work hard for the good of our world while we pursue our loves and cultivate eudaimonia. Not punchy, it needs work. :)

 

I do believe that people who are pursuing beauty, truth, and goodness per se are pursuing wonderful, excellent qualities. The words as I understand them aren't as well suited to my own views as I'd like, but it is clear that other people have internalized other definitions and are able to extract the best of these ideas. I am sure that my own goals will strike an discordant tone for many, and that the beautiful, the good and the true are better concepts for them.

Edited March 27, 2012 by serendipitous journey

[justamouse]

 

That said.......my swing toward classical approach to Latin and literature is b/c I have witnessed the exact same mental-growth in the language/reasoning skills of my kids via a comparable approach in the language areas of our homeschool. (even w/our youngest math ds......the strongest proponent of classical education in our household.)

 

Anyway, it is why I am firmly planted in the position that it is not "either/or". Both are possible. I have witnessed in both the math and the language areas of my children's cognitive skills. FWIW, my dh is completely hands-off in our homeschool and is clueless as to what goes on. However, I have been listening to so many lectures/etc. that is what prompted our conversation. He told me that he has seen a different level of conversation in the kids. So, it isn't just me. ;)

 

This has been my own experience.

 

On my list of next reads is Stratford Caldecott's Beauty for Truth's Sake.

 

Much of the confusion and meaninglessness of the twenty-first century stems from the fragmentation of knowledge. Our postmodern times cry out for a return to wholeness. Enter Stratford Caldecott, who calls for renewal in education in Beauty for Truth's Sake. By reclaiming the classic liberal arts and viewing disciplines such as science and mathematics through a poetic lens, the author explains that unity is present within diversity. Ultimately, God is behind all truth.

 

This book will benefit parents, homeschoolers, lifelong learners, and readers interested in the history of ideas. It is appropriate for Christian college and university students and will play an especially important role in curriculum development.

 

He also has an amazing blog.

 

I'm not trying to perpetuate a division. It's not either or, it's both AND, but both are vital to the whole.

[SorrelZG]

I haven't read the this thread for the most part, so I have no idea where the conversation has gone. I just wanted to post a brief comment that during a conversation w/my dh that made me think about Beth's OP.

 

I have posted multiple times over the last couple of yrs about how much our oldest missed out on by not having the opportunity to do AoPS. He is a very gifted young man, but the exposure to the problem-solving approach in AoPS has taken his equally gifted youngest brother to a different level of cognitive processing. How our youngest son thinks about math and problems is more holistic/creative process. His abilities on "how to think" about problem solving in math have been nurtured, strengthened, deepened by his exposure to the AoPS approach. It is simple reality. (I taught them both and know that their skills are equivalent on the "natural" level.

 

That said.......my swing toward classical approach to Latin and literature is b/c I have witnessed the exact same mental-growth in the language/reasoning skills of my kids via a comparable approach in the language areas of our homeschool. (even w/our youngest math ds......the strongest proponent of classical education in our household.)

 

Anyway, it is why I am firmly planted in the position that it is not "either/or". Both are possible. I have witnessed in both the math and the language areas of my children's cognitive skills. FWIW, my dh is completely hands-off in our homeschool and is clueless as to what goes on. However, I have been listening to so many lectures/etc. that is what prompted our conversation. He told me that he has seen a different level of conversation in the kids. So, it isn't just me. ;)

 

 

I'm glad to hear this! I suppose in some thread somewhere, which i dont have time to read, someone disagrees and has a great argument for doing so but personally, we love literature, language, math and science. Besides Latin, I can be so informal about it all with my young ones simply becaused we're immersed in it, both literature and regular deep discussion (my 6yo apparently wasn't informed about the grammar stage) AND math and science.

 

It's not just the STEM folks tinkering with electronics and solar panels and creating perpetual motion machines just for fun (thanks to my techy, Greek and Theology loving DH) and DS has an almost encyclopedic knowledge of living things which is growing daily and he teaches to anyone with ears.

[justamouse]

We own a small business. Dh doesn't ask potential employees for a 15-page essay when he's interviewing them for sales, service, tech or driving positions.

 

I'm weary of this topic. I'm going to peace out for a while. Kids to teach and all that jazz...

 

So you make up some crazy fact about how we interview, then shoot it down (of course because it's outrageous) then leave? And try and shame me for not schooling? I'm on break. Not that it's anyone's business.

 

We don't require 15 pages. We requite them to fulfill the obligations of their job.

 

I say this is all seriousness. We have *One* American in our lab. One.

 

You want to know who is writing all of those papers? Chinese, Turkish and Korean employees.

 

So they're not only writing papers, they're writing papers that aren't even in their first language.

 

Our students are not spechul snowflakes who are only capable of one specialization. They are not. And we are doing them (and our country) a grave disservice to think that's all they are capable of.

Edited March 27, 2012 by justamouse

[Ummto4]

 

I have posted multiple times over the last couple of yrs about how much our oldest missed out on by not having the opportunity to do AoPS. He is a very gifted young man, but the exposure to the problem-solving approach in AoPS has taken his equally gifted youngest brother to a different level of cognitive processing. How our youngest son thinks about math and problems is more holistic/creative process. His abilities on "how to think" about problem solving in math have been nurtured, strengthened, deepened by his exposure to the AoPS approach. It is simple reality. (I taught them both and know that their skills are equivalent on the "natural" level.

 

That said.......my swing toward classical approach to Latin and literature is b/c I have witnessed the exact same mental-growth in the language/reasoning skills of my kids via a comparable approach in the language areas of our homeschool. (even w/our youngest math ds......the strongest proponent of classical education in our household.)

 

 

First, I'd like to thank you for advising us younger moms so that we can all learn from your trial and errors.

 

I have two questions though.

You posted before that AOPS is not for everyone. However, you equally said that your 10th grade ds understands math better and deeper than the first one. Suppose we want our dcs to get to 'that level of math', esp. the STEM-inclined kiddos - does it mean that AOPS is necessary ? Do you think your ds#1 is handicapped in any way for not doing AOPS ? Do ou think he would be more creative had he done AOPS ? Do you think that he's even suited for AOPS ?

 

The reason I ask this is that I have a rather quirky son who's solid in math, loves science, and wants to be an engineer (dad is comp. scientist/researcher, great grandad, grandad and uncles/hubby siblings are all engineers - so it's in the family). I don't see him as a candidate for AOPS though, from the way people describe this program, and he's no way like your 10th grader. But again, my son is only 10, so who knows ??

 

Second question. What convince you that LAtin is necessary ? Can't it be replaced by other equally difficult languages ? Granted, Latin is the precursor of English, so there's vocabulary advantage there which comes w/ studying Latin. But how about other advantages ? I'm thinking about languages such as Greek, Hebrew and Arabic (my interest is classical Arabic).

 

Thanks.

[LibraryLover]

STEM is not 'classical'? Eureka! My eyeballs are oy-veying out of my head.

[ElizaG]

STEM is not 'classical'? Eureka! My eyeballs are oy-veying out of my head.

Man, this board break is not working out as planned. :lol:

 

Pure science and math are part of the liberal arts (represented as a "tower" in medieval drawings; science was part of philosophy). The liberal arts are the basis of what we call classical education.

 

Technology and engineering are part of the servile arts, which just means they are practical and oriented toward the necessities of life.

 

They, along with all our other everyday stuff -- making dinner, knitting a sweater -- are what people do after they climb down from the tower (at whatever level they've been able to reach... and this "climb" can continue throughout life). The things they learned up there, while not specifically job training, can be applied in everything we do.

 

The liberal and servile arts are both important, but, in classical terms, they are entirely different.

 

This is why I cannot stand that acronym: because it lumps them all together.

 

[ETA: And in the real world, we have to teach our children both, as Ester Maria pointed out. It's just that the "classical" part -- the liberal arts -- used to be taught in dedicated schools by dedicated teachers, and then you also had all the other stuff. It isn't so straightforward for us, as we are trying to deal with it all at once. ]

Edited March 27, 2012 by Eleanor