Anyone else *NOT* 'buzzed'/on board with Circe?

[Happy2BaMom]

Disclaimer: I am NOT trying to criticize or diminish those who are finding a lot of value in the Circe materials. It sounds like lots of good 'groovin' in going on. It's wonderful that so many are finding deep meaning in their materials.

 

But I've read every.single.page. of 'the thread' (and I did get some good resources, thanks) and I've listened to two of Andrew's talks, and....I'm just not on board with it.

 

Some of my reactions I don't want to share, because I feel they will be too controversial and will lead to people going off on tangents, reacting to my reactions.

 

I guess I'm troubled most by the supposition that *this* (being The Circe Method) is The Answer. He makes some sweeping statements that would not be supported by critical questions. And I'm troubled by the seeming 'blind-eye' that is turned to the horrendous things that happened when this method of Classical Education was more of the norm. I guess that's why I'm struggling to see this method as necessarily being *better*. I personally think human beings, classical, Christian, or none of the above, are capable of inflicting great and, usually unthinking, damage on other human beings. And it seems that when we are the most morally sure of ourselves that that is when we are capable of doing the greatest damage.

 

Yet I also believe that we need to contemplate and study the good, the beautiful, and the true, and the dumbing down of our schools has been a tragedy. But why is it supposed that there is only one right way out? Or that classical Christian ed will ride to the rescue of the collapse of society? Given much of history, and what I've experienced in most of the churches I've been a member of, I'm not sure I want anyone of any religious persuasion riding to my rescue.

 

So, I am conflicted and not on the bandwagon and wondering whether I am alone. That is basically all.

 

And all of this is MHO only. For those who have found purpose and connection in their materials, blessings.

 

Edited to add: if anyone else posts, please keep this respectful. There are days when I wonder whether this is a homeschool board or a roller derby.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Happy2BaMom

[NASDAQ]

Me, but I think everyone knows that now.

 

I looked up Andrew Kern. He has a BA from a fourth-tier university, and I can't find any other education. That makes me suspicious.

 

I don't think he writes well and I think his pronouncements that CLASSICAL HOMESCHOOLING WILL SAVE AMERICA are hyperbolic to the point of being ridiculous.

[mamatohaleybug]

Not my thing either.

[Hedgehogs4]

Me, but I think everyone knows that now.

 

I looked up Andrew Kern. He has a BA from a fourth-tier university, and I can't find any other education. That makes me suspicious.

 

I don't think he writes well and I think his pronouncements that CLASSICAL HOMESCHOOLING WILL SAVE AMERICA are hyperbolic to the point of being ridiculous.

 

And some of our greatest presidents never went to college. Based on your suspicions, that might be why we're in the messes we're in.

 

I'm not saying that I am pro- or con- Andrew Kern, but I think discounting someone's ideas because they didn't come from a particular level of educational background is flawed. Many of the greatest thinkers of our times never had University educations, and many of us are trying to defy the norm that someone is only respectable based on the piece of paper they hold, issued from a particular institution. My best thinking / learning was not done in University. Oftentimes these people come to their conclusions based on what DIDN'T happen in college or University, and they aim to course-correct.

[Sctigermom]

I read through it. Meh, not for me.

[Rivka]

Anyone else *NOT* 'buzzed'/on board with Circe?

 

Yes, but the thread was locked.

[usetoschool]

You may not have seen this thread - pretty much covers the same ground.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=361005

[Bang!Zoom!]

Circe is not 1 man.

 

It is an institute made of many.

[Mom-ninja.]

I'm not interested. I love TWTM. :D

[LittleIzumi]

There are days when I wonder whether this is a homeschool board or a roller derby.

 

:lol::lol::lol: Can I get this on a bumper sticker??

[Andrew Kern]

 

I guess I'm troubled most by the supposition that *this* (being The Circe Method) is The Answer. He makes some sweeping statements that would not be supported by critical questions. And I'm troubled by the seeming 'blind-eye' that is turned to the horrendous things that happened when this method of Classical Education was more of the norm. I guess that's why I'm struggling to see this method as necessarily being *better*. I personally think human beings, classical, Christian, or none of the above, are capable of inflicting great and, usually unthinking, damage on other human beings. And it seems that when we are the most morally sure of ourselves that that is when we are capable of doing the greatest damage.

 

 

 

Happy2B,

 

I want to thank you for posting these thoughts. One of the most disturbing things to me is when I say something and people don't agree or appreciate it but they don't say anything.

 

I have to tell you, I am not "buzzed" or "on board with CiRCE" all the time either. Some times I look back at things I've said and can't believe they left my mouth. And what you say about doing great damage is very meaningful to me.

 

Something I would particularly appreciate is some help understanding what you mean by the "method" you see me promoting. To my mind, classical education is a long tradition, a way, and a resource as opposed to a method. I've often spoken out against methods, in fact.

 

There is no greater kindness one person can do for another than to show him the error in his ways, so if you can help me see where I have gone wrong, I would be very grateful. I probably don't have the stamina to learn too many things at once, but anything you can help me with will secure my undying gratitude.

 

I don't want to hurt anybody through my errors, so I thank you with a sincere heart for bringing this up and helping to heal my disordered mind.

[Crimson Wife]

I think his pronouncements that CLASSICAL HOMESCHOOLING WILL SAVE AMERICA are hyperbolic to the point of being ridiculous.

 

I wish fixing the problems with our modern society were as simple as classical education (whether done at home or in classroom-based schools). I do think that classically-educated students are more likely to grow up to be critical thinkers and less likely to fall victim to the "bread and circuses" mentality that is causing a lot of the problems in America. But I don't think classical education is the only route to developing a critical thinker, or even necessarily the best (that depends on the particular student).

[Gentlemommy]

Happy2B,

 

I want to thank you for posting these thoughts. One of the most disturbing things to me is when I say something and people don't agree or appreciate it but they don't say anything.

 

I have to tell you, I am not "buzzed" or "on board with CiRCE" all the time either. Some times I look back at things I've said and can't believe they left my mouth. And what you say about doing great damage is very meaningful to me.

 

Something I would particularly appreciate is some help understanding what you mean by the "method" you see me promoting. To my mind, classical education is a long tradition, a way, and a resource as opposed to a method. I've often spoken out against methods, in fact.

 

There is no greater kindness one person can do for another than to show him the error in his ways, so if you can help me see where I have gone wrong, I would be very grateful. I probably don't have the stamina to learn too many things at once, but anything you can help me with will secure my undying gratitude.

 

I don't want to hurt anybody through my errors, so I thank you with a sincere heart for bringing this up and helping to heal my disordered mind.

 

 

Wow. Whether I agree or disagree with the Circe way or Andrew Kern, I have an enormous amount of respect for this. :001_smile:

[onaclairadeluna]

I don't think he writes well and I think his pronouncements that CLASSICAL HOMESCHOOLING WILL SAVE AMERICA are hyperbolic to the point of being ridiculous.

 

Yes but...

 

I have seen this type of hyperbole in virtually every educational philosophy or fad. From Waldorf, Montessori, Enki to Unschooling to WTM to public school fads like Block Scheduling.

 

I think a certain amount of searching for "the ultimate answer" or truth leads one to jump on a bandwagon of hyperbole as you get so excited about your new shiny thing.

 

I, for example am head over heels with Grogg, Lizzie and his friends at the academy. I think we have to recognize that there are limitations to these pronouncements of love. Clearly no one curriculum or philosophy will change the world overnight. But if I find that I am not in love or infatuated with what I am doing, then it seems best to look for another path.

 

I don't know, I can't get into the Circe lectures. I tried as I really saw some love over there. It's just not my thing. But a small part of me is thrilled to see folks connecting with their bliss.

[NASDAQ]

And some of our greatest presidents never went to college. Based on your suspicions, that might be why we're in the messes we're in.

 

Except he's not applying to be president; He's presenting himself as an expert in a certain form of education.

 

I have suspicions about the level of Greek and Latin, for example, that one can self-teach. It's a suspicion. Not an absolute. I think that if a person thinks that a type of education is important, he should get the credentials necessary to demonstrate that he has indeed obtained that sort of education, and obtained a high proficiency in it. I like my lawyers to have law degrees, and I like my Institute-founders to at least get a masters. It introduces an element of external validation of one's self-teaching. Since my Latin is rusty and my Greek non-existent, I'm not the best person to validate someone's claims myself.

 

Also, this isn't 1800. A graduate education is widely available, and the decision _not_ to undertake it begs the question.

[stripe]

Yes but...

 

I have seen this type of hyperbole in virtually every educational philosophy or fad. From Waldorf, Montessori, Enki to Unschooling to WTM to public school fads like Block Scheduling.

True, I once found(and posted) an article from about a hundred years ago suggesting Charlotte Mason followers were rather personality-driven.

[NASDAQ]

Yes but...

 

I have seen this type of hyperbole in virtually every educational philosophy or fad. From Waldorf, Montessori, Enki to Unschooling to WTM to public school fads like Block Scheduling.

 

I think a certain amount of searching for "the ultimate answer" or truth leads one to jump on a bandwagon of hyperbole as you get so excited about your new shiny thing.

 

This is true, and I think it's part of the problem with education as an industry. People get enthusiastic, swing wildly from one direction to the other, and miss the opportunity to make considered, incremental reforms. It also seems to be common in politics. But it's a bad thing if we let our enthusiasms lead us astray.

[kristinannie]

I can only speak for myself and I am early on in this journey, but here are my thoughts FWIW. I have come to realize through reading various sources that I want my kids to have a truly classical Catholic education (since I am Catholic :tongue_smilie:). I am planning on going about this classical education using a lot of CM methods. I am undecided whether to follow CM or Classical writing when that comes up, but we aren't even close to needing to worry about that.

 

I can see where some people don't care for the CIRCE talks because many of them are more about theory and abstractions than about concrete ideas. However, that is what I love about them. I don't want or need a concrete set of plans. I want a theory that can develop as our family matures.

 

I am in the beginning stages of giving myself my own classical education. I have just started learning Latin and reading classic books. My education was very lacking and I went to a top tier university and a top 20 law school. I love the idea of searching for truth. For me, that also includes gaining self-knowledge through prayer as well as reading and learning. I am honestly seeking truth in my life and I want that to be the main goal for my children as well.

 

I saw Andrew Kern speak for the first time at the Southeast Homeschool Convention last week. I went to a talk he gave entitled "You Are What You Behold: Nourishing Your Child's Soul on Truth." I have to say that this was a life changing talk for me and I very much regret not buying a recording of it before leaving the convention. I wish I could provide a link so that everyone could hear it, but it really resonated with me as the path I want my life and the lives of my children life to follow. It gave me encouragement to continue on this path of classical education.

 

Honestly, I have TWTM and I find it very helpful. However, I do feel like it doesn't lay out a classical education in the sense that I hope to give my children. It is a much better plan than the schools in our country and will give kids a wonderful education, but it isn't truly classical (in the classical sense of the word :lol:).

 

OK, please excuse the rambling. I don't know a lot about the CIRCE Institute although I am seriously considering going to their conference in July if I can get childcare worked out and come up with the money. I do know that Andrew Kern is an inspiration to me. I don't think it matters where he went to school by the way. If you have ever heard him speak, you know he is well educated. I think homeschoolers should be careful not to disparage where a person gets his education.

[Andrew Kern]

NASDAQ

 

It's much worth than you fear. I studied a year of Latin in high school and a year of Greek in college, then taught Latin to little kids for a few years and studied it with my own kids. Now my daughter is teaching it at a classical schol and studying it at the college level so I am content that progress is being made. I have not, however, had the opportunity to study it under a master in a long time.

 

Same with Greek. While I use my Loeb classics, attend a church with a partial Greek liturgy, and study my New Testament with any tools I can find, I'm at about a first year college level in Koine, not even classical, Greek. Homer completely kills me.

 

In Latin, I learn what I can from friends who know it like Martin Cothran and my daughter study when I am able.

 

But in my experience, at least, you are right - I have found that one hits a wall in his studies that is very hard to get past.

 

As for not having my masters, even that is worse than you think. When I was 29 I started a school and didn't even have my BA yet so the board told me to get it. Because I was in the adult accelerated curriculum I was able to get it in only 15 years. And yes, it was a fourth tier university. The redeeming value was that Dr. Gene Edward Veith took me under his wing and mentored me.

 

I started CiRCE because I needed a means to do research, since I was driven by the question, "what the heck is classical education?" For 15 years I've been trying to figure it out. If I'd been able to participate in graduate studies I'm quite certain I would have answered the question by now and I wouldn't need CiRCE anymore.

 

I do dream of someday getting an advanced degree, but so far I've been unable to pay for my children to go to a better college, so I'm holding my breath.

 

In my defense, I have worked very hard at all the colleges I have attended. I was the most promising first year student at Wilfrid Laurier for three years running (just kidding on the modifier) and won the Sally Jefferson prize. I also graduated first in my class at Concordia and was asked to give the graduation speech. My parents both listened.

 

I've had to make the best of a rather difficult situation when it comes to education. I've read a lot and made a point of talking with the smartest people I know as much as possible. So most of my education is from reading and hanging out with learned people.

 

But I think I might well give my left arm for an advanced degree now that I don't need it (my arm) any more.

 

Thank you for regarding CiRCE critically. Anybody who thinks we are the answer is out of his mind.

 

Did I really say that classical home schooling will save America?

 

Gratefully,

 

ajk

 

Except he's not applying to be president; He's presenting himself as an expert in a certain form of education.

 

I have suspicions about the level of Greek and Latin, for example, that one can self-teach. It's a suspicion. Not an absolute. I think that if a person thinks that a type of education is important, he should get the credentials necessary to demonstrate that he has indeed obtained that sort of education, and obtained a high proficiency in it. I like my lawyers to have law degrees, and I like my Institute-founders to at least get a masters. It introduces an element of external validation of one's self-teaching. Since my Latin is rusty and my Greek non-existent, I'm not the best person to validate someone's claims myself.

 

Also, this isn't 1800. A graduate education is widely available, and the decision _not_ to undertake it begs the question.

[ByGrace3]

I guess I'm troubled most by the supposition that *this* (being The Circe Method) is The Answer.

 

Yet I also believe that we need to contemplate and study the good, the beautiful, and the true, and the dumbing down of our schools has been a tragedy. But why is it supposed that there is only one right way out? Or that classical Christian ed will ride to the rescue of the collapse of society? Given much of history, and what I've experienced in most of the churches I've been a member of, I'm not sure I want anyone of any religious persuasion riding to my rescue.

 

 

Well, I have not read all of that thread, and hardly any of the s/o's. I am on page 43 of the original thread through, working my way through as I have time.

 

A couple of thoughts (granted this is coming from someone who had never heard of Circe or Andrew Kern before this week.)

 

Is Classical education the only way to save mankind? :tongue_smilie: What a fun question, no? Well, certainly not. However, does the core of what classical education is made of serve to rectify that which is wrong in the world? Perhaps.

 

As a Christian, I have my own ideas on the problems in the world ;) but that aside, I believe the idea behind classical education serving as a "fix" is the thought that the downfall of humanity comes with relativism, a loss of truth, a loss of beauty, and a loss of virtue. When each man determines for himself what is true, good, and virtuous, and it does not agree, to what end does that lead?

 

So, does classical education serve as "the answer," No, but I do believe a return to an absolute of truth, beauty, and virtue do.

 

This is why classical education often has such a foundation in Christian circles. Christians find this absolute in God and His Word.

 

Like I think has been said many times, the heart of it is not the method at all, it is the principles.

 

I certainly do not plan to scrap my curriculum plans, and I happen to enjoy reading and teaching with historical fiction. So, no, I am not fully "on board" however, I do not think that is the point. I think I can take these principles that I did glean from the thread and extra research :tongue_smilie: and implement them into our homeschool.

 

Here is what I took away from that thread (so far!) ;) that I plan to implement in our homeschool.

 

--Define your purpose. Work towards that purpose. If you strive for that which is true, beautiful, and virtuous, work towards that end, eliminate that which deters you from this path.

 

--Read. A lot. Not just anything, but that which is true, good, and beautiful. Read classics- of old and new.

 

--Discuss. A lot. I think this is a major point. Lots of reading alone will not a virtuous person make. We need to shine a light on the true, the good, and the virtuous and facilitate connections with our children. All.the.time. We are helping our children construct a worldview. What we read, discuss, and put into practice will be the foundation to which our children build upon for the rest of their lives.

 

--It is NOT about the method. I spend way too much time researching curricula. While I would love to sit and construct my own plans like many on that thread are doing, and while I know I am "capable" I know ultimately I am not willing. I would burn out. I like to take a curriculum as a jumping off point, and tweak to my hearts content. Oddly enough, I felt reassured on my choice for SL next year after reading that thread. :lol: I will find gaps as in any curricula and I will do my best to fill them. However, I see SL as a great jumping off point for my littles to read and discuss. Read, discuss, find that which is true, good, beautiful and virtuous and that which is not, and then help our children make connections.

 

--oh, and there were some wonderful booklists in that thread!

 

--Do not become a slave to box checking in your curricula. This WILL lead to burn out. Engage your children with what you are reading and studying. Allow it to fester in their minds and hearts, growing deep roots that will not be forgotten. Use curriculum as the tool it is supposed to be.

 

--(While I personally like historical fiction, and using lit and historical fiction around our history studies, and plan to continue this) Don't allow the years plan to miss out on wonderful opportunities. Still read the classics, allow rabbit trails and history to be found and learned from literature as well. This does not have to be antithetical. (I have been very guilty of this, which is why I am planning a detour next year in our "plan").

 

--Teach our children to think critically, analytically. To question and compare and contrast. To find for themselves what is true, good, beautiful, and virtuous.

 

Those are my thoughts though not worth much, and perhaps that is not at all what they were talking about and I completely misunderstood. However, I am pleased with what I gleaned -- imaginary or not! ;)

 

(Why do I have the sudden urge to go look up what tier the university I graduated from is in?) :lol:

 

 

Happy2B,

 

I want to thank you for posting these thoughts. One of the most disturbing things to me is when I say something and people don't agree or appreciate it but they don't say anything.

 

I have to tell you, I am not "buzzed" or "on board with CiRCE" all the time either. Some times I look back at things I've said and can't believe they left my mouth. And what you say about doing great damage is very meaningful to me.

 

Something I would particularly appreciate is some help understanding what you mean by the "method" you see me promoting. To my mind, classical education is a long tradition, a way, and a resource as opposed to a method. I've often spoken out against methods, in fact.

 

There is no greater kindness one person can do for another than to show him the error in his ways, so if you can help me see where I have gone wrong, I would be very grateful. I probably don't have the stamina to learn too many things at once, but anything you can help me with will secure my undying gratitude.

 

I don't want to hurt anybody through my errors, so I thank you with a sincere heart for bringing this up and helping to heal my disordered mind.

 

Amazing humility here. (When you applaud someones humility, does something seem to be negated?) :lol: While I have not heard of you before, I certainly plan to do some reading (and listening!) Thank you for your contributions.

[Andrew Kern]

Dang it: great opening sentence.

 

It's much worse* than you fear.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Dang it: great opening sentence.

 

It's much worse* than you fear.

 

That's why we have the gift of the edit button. We've all been there. :D

[Andrew Kern]

That's why we have the gift of the edit button. We've all been there. :D

 

Thanks. :001_smile:

[SorrelZG]

Yeah no kidding. I'd apply tomorrow if I could afford it. The only reason I never went to grad school is because I just could not afford it! I'm already paying nearly $300 a month until 2026 for my education. Talk about depressing.

 

Ouch.

[mamaraby]

It's too ethnocentric for my taste.

 

This. I'm not a Christian so there's just too much other stuff to wade through in order for it to be valuable or meaningful to me. I'm also not a "one way" kind of gal. I don't believe that our world needs saving and while I disagree with many of the things done in public education I think in terms of adjustments not radical changes.

 

I like WTM - while I may not agree with everything SWB says, writes, or believes, it's not so obtrusive that I can't adapt it to our needs/worldview.

[i.love.lucy]

NASDAQ

 

It's much worth than you fear. I studied a year of Latin in high school and a year of Greek in college, then taught Latin to little kids for a few years and studied it with my own kids. Now my daughter is teaching it at a classical schol and studying it at the college level so I am content that progress is being made. I have not, however, had the opportunity to study it under a master in a long time.

 

Same with Greek. While I use my Loeb classics, attend a church with a partial Greek liturgy, and study my New Testament with any tools I can find, I'm at about a first year college level in Koine, not even classical, Greek. Homer completely kills me.

 

In Latin, I learn what I can from friends who know it like Martin Cothran and my daughter study when I am able.

 

But in my experience, at least, you are right - I have found that one hits a wall in his studies that is very hard to get past.

 

As for not having my masters, even that is worse than you think. When I was 29 I started a school and didn't even have my BA yet so the board told me to get it. Because I was in the adult accelerated curriculum I was able to get it in only 15 years. And yes, it was a fourth tier university. The redeeming value was that Dr. Gene Edward Veith took me under his wing and mentored me.

 

I started CiRCE because I needed a means to do research, since I was driven by the question, "what the heck is classical education?" For 15 years I've been trying to figure it out. If I'd been able to participate in graduate studies I'm quite certain I would have answered the question by now and I wouldn't need CiRCE anymore.

 

I do dream of someday getting an advanced degree, but so far I've been unable to pay for my children to go to a better college, so I'm holding my breath.

 

In my defense, I have worked very hard at all the colleges I have attended. I was the most promising first year student at Wilfrid Laurier for three years running (just kidding on the modifier) and won the Sally Jefferson prize. I also graduated first in my class at Concordia and was asked to give the graduation speech. My parents both listened.

 

I've had to make the best of a rather difficult situation when it comes to education. I've read a lot and made a point of talking with the smartest people I know as much as possible. So most of my education is from reading and hanging out with learned people.

 

But I think I might well give my left arm for an advanced degree now that I don't need it (my arm) any more.

 

Thank you for regarding CiRCE critically. Anybody who thinks we are the answer is out of his mind.

 

Did I really say that classical home schooling will save America?

 

Gratefully,

 

ajk

:001_wub:

[swimmermom3]

Except he's not applying to be president; He's presenting himself as an expert in a certain form of education.

 

I have suspicions about the level of Greek and Latin, for example, that one can self-teach. It's a suspicion. Not an absolute. I think that if a person thinks that a type of education is important, he should get the credentials necessary to demonstrate that he has indeed obtained that sort of education, and obtained a high proficiency in it. I like my lawyers to have law degrees, and I like my Institute-founders to at least get a masters. It introduces an element of external validation of one's self-teaching. Since my Latin is rusty and my Greek non-existent, I'm not the best person to validate someone's claims myself.

 

Also, this isn't 1800. A graduate education is widely available, and the decision _not_ to undertake it begs the question.

 

I understand what you are saying, but I would like you to consider a couple of examples:

 

1. There is a boardie here that does not have a college education, yet I would trust her in a heartbeat to educate my youngest son. Her intelligent insight, common sense, and out-of the box thinking are often worth way more than my BS, MBA, and that silly real estate license. At nearly 50, I am far less impressed with impressive wall paper than I was at 30. There are a lot of morons out there with impressive wallpaper and I have certainly been one of those at times. Degrees do not change faulty thinking.

 

2. You said that you want a lawyer to have a law degree. Understood. However, you home school, correct? Are you a teacher? Can only teachers teach? I have had one foot in home schooling and one foot in a public school for years. More than once I have answered the sometimes hostile questions such as, "What makes you think that you (a non-teacher) can teach chemistry better than an "expert? One on one, I can't teach chemistry better than a high school chemistry teacher. However, in reality, the odds are in my favor. The chemistry teacher has to manage 40-60 students. I have only one student and I do all the reading and work all the problems alongside him. I go to an expert when I am unsure, but that does not happen often.

 

I may not be comfortable with the quote I saw where Mr. Kern asked that one not teach if one basically weren't working towards the same educational and moral goals. However, I may not have seen it in context. Or if I did, it still won't stop me from sending out a :hurray: for my fellow board members that have found comfort, clarity, and direction in the Circe Institute thread. Those qualities are often short on the ground when you are homeschooling.

Edited March 27, 2012 by swimmermom3

[Happy2BaMom]

First of all, Andrew & ByGrace3, thank you for your thoughtful responses - they are what my rather sensitive self wishes dialogue on the board could be rather than the head-stomping free-for-all it often seems to be. I don't have time right now to provide a more in-depth response, but I will try later today. My brain enjoys the exercise. And, Andrew, no brain can be more disordered than mine when I am trying to express complicated, conflicting feelings for which I have no adequate words or thought process to express (maybe I need a little more classical education...:D)

 

I believe the idea behind classical education serving as a "fix" is the thought that the downfall of humanity comes with relativism, a loss of truth, a loss of beauty, and a loss of virtue.

See, while I agree that there *is* an absolute on beauty, value, truth, I see just as much relativism in history, including the period when classical Christian education was more the norm, as I do today. There was a tremendous amount of relativism in Christians toward African Americans and Native Americans. I know a LOT of U.S. history particularly on the latter, so it affects my view of the opinion that the time of classical Christian education was a non-relative, "true" time in life.

 

I believe learning about and reaching for the "ideals" is a large part of what an education should be, and I would agree that God is what defines the absolute values (but, since I am fall into the "liberal Quaker" religion, I probably don't even qualify in a number of eyes as Christian), but I think our blindness to our own degree of relativism is mind-boggling, and that is what "jangles my bells" when it comes to heavily promoting the "answer to the fall". (not that I would disagree that we're facing a fall) I could post much more here, things that might help clarify what I observe and feel, but I just know it will get pulled-apart and spawn "reaction-jerk", so I'll leave well enough alone.

 

I'm really not convinced that people today are worse than they have ever been. When I read history, and I've read a lot, it seems it's largely individuals or groups of people being largely hideous to other individuals or groups of people, and NO group has done consistently better than any other group (OK, maybe Mother Teresa's order, but that's a tiny %age of the whole).

 

I do think for white, middle-class Christians (and, at least by my definition, I fit all of those categories), yes, society today is worse. But if you are poor, and/or another race, in many ways it is better - no one is forcibly tearing your children from your home to send them to a harsh boarding school to be "integrated", no one is selling you or your family members on a block or lynching your sons without reason or penalty, and, as an add on, no one is telling me my daughter can't attend college because it would be a "waste", etc. So, do I want a return to the past, not now, not ever.

 

The kids are hungry, and I've interrupted our schooling to respond, so back to the blocks. I appreciate having to plumb my brain though, to even get this much down.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Happy2BaMom

[jessie410]

Well, I have not read all of that thread, and hardly any of the s/o's. I am on page 43 of the original thread through, working my way through as I have time.

 

A couple of thoughts (granted this is coming from someone who had never heard of Circe or Andrew Kern before this week.)

 

Is Classical education the only way to save mankind? :tongue_smilie: What a fun question, no? Well, certainly not. However, does the core of what classical education is made of serve to rectify that which is wrong in the world? Perhaps.

 

As a Christian, I have my own ideas on the problems in the world ;) but that aside, I believe the idea behind classical education serving as a "fix" is the thought that the downfall of humanity comes with relativism, a loss of truth, a loss of beauty, and a loss of virtue. When each man determines for himself what is true, good, and virtuous, and it does not agree, to what end does that lead?

 

So, does classical education serve as "the answer," No, but I do believe a return to an absolute of truth, beauty, and virtue do.

 

This is why classical education often has such a foundation in Christian circles. Christians find this absolute in God and His Word.

 

Like I think has been said many times, the heart of it is not the method at all, it is the principles.

 

I certainly do not plan to scrap my curriculum plans, and I happen to enjoy reading and teaching with historical fiction. So, no, I am not fully "on board" however, I do not think that is the point. I think I can take these principles that I did glean from the thread and extra research :tongue_smilie: and implement them into our homeschool.

 

Here is what I took away from that thread (so far!) ;) that I plan to implement in our homeschool.

 

--Define your purpose. Work towards that purpose. If you strive for that which is true, beautiful, and virtuous, work towards that end, eliminate that which deters you from this path.

 

--Read. A lot. Not just anything, but that which is true, good, and beautiful. Read classics- of old and new.

 

--Discuss. A lot. I think this is a major point. Lots of reading alone will not a virtuous person make. We need to shine a light on the true, the good, and the virtuous and facilitate connections with our children. All.the.time. We are helping our children construct a worldview. What we read, discuss, and put into practice will be the foundation to which our children build upon for the rest of their lives.

 

--It is NOT about the method. I spend way too much time researching curricula. While I would love to sit and construct my own plans like many on that thread are doing, and while I know I am "capable" I know ultimately I am not willing. I would burn out. I like to take a curriculum as a jumping off point, and tweak to my hearts content. Oddly enough, I felt reassured on my choice for SL next year after reading that thread. :lol: I will find gaps as in any curricula and I will do my best to fill them. However, I see SL as a great jumping off point for my littles to read and discuss. Read, discuss, find that which is true, good, beautiful and virtuous and that which is not, and then help our children make connections.

 

--oh, and there were some wonderful booklists in that thread!

 

--Do not become a slave to box checking in your curricula. This WILL lead to burn out. Engage your children with what you are reading and studying. Allow it to fester in their minds and hearts, growing deep roots that will not be forgotten. Use curriculum as the tool it is supposed to be.

 

--(While I personally like historical fiction, and using lit and historical fiction around our history studies, and plan to continue this) Don't allow the years plan to miss out on wonderful opportunities. Still read the classics, allow rabbit trails and history to be found and learned from literature as well. This does not have to be antithetical. (I have been very guilty of this, which is why I am planning a detour next year in our "plan").

 

--Teach our children to think critically, analytically. To question and compare and contrast. To find for themselves what is true, good, beautiful, and virtuous.

 

Those are my thoughts though not worth much, and perhaps that is not at all what they were talking about and I completely misunderstood. However, I am pleased with what I gleaned -- imaginary or not! ;)

 

(Why do I have the sudden urge to go look up what tier the university I graduated from is in?) :lol:

 

 

I am new to all this and attempted reading "the thread" but wasn't sure if I was getting it or not. Your thoughts have beautifully summed up what I was trying to figure out, so thank you, from a fellow Christian :)

[Happy2BaMom]

ByGrace, I also appreciated your summary. I only wish I had found your summary before reading every.single.page. And I still didn't come away with as nice of a summary as you.

[NASDAQ]

Mr. Kern, thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. I think what you actually said was that this trend would, through the intense love of mothers for their children, rescue American education.

 

I am not sure how I can reconcile professionally advocating a certain type of education without having received it, and to be on the board or staff of a classical education institute seems like a very odd precursor to obtaining a BA. But obviously your mileage may vary.

[Crimson Wife]

At nearly 50, I am far less impressed with impressive wall paper than I was at 30. There are a lot of morons out there with impressive wallpaper and I have certainly been one of those at times. Degrees do not change faulty thinking.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree: (except I'm a bit younger ;))

 

I wasn't terribly impressed by the quality of education I received at a "name brand" university nor the quality of graduate education my DH received at an Ivy. The real value of those degrees were the networking potential of the fellow students and alumni and the piece of paper signifying that one had won admission to a very selective school.

 

A bunch of letters after one's name is nice and all, but I wouldn't let the lack of them keep me from considering what someone has to say about education.

[justamouse]

Change rarely comes from with in the establishment. It takes an out of the box thinker to address things so often, and being steeped in academia is no guarrantee of an interest or gift for education.

 

The Two Andrews impress me, not necessarily with their product, but with their passion. And the innovation. And at least for Pudewa, a true gift for speaking which makes me think he could sell ice to an Alaskan. He got my kid to write more in one hour than I had in 3 years.;)

 

:iagree:

[momma2three]

Me. The whole thing got my spidey sense tingling.

 

But I'm happy for other people that it resonates with them. There are things I feel strongly about that other people are not into. It's all good.

[Mommy22alyns]

Honestly, trying to read the thread makes my brain hurt. I fear I'm just not smart enough. So I'll stick with what I'm doing. But hey, if it works for someone else, that's no problem for me. :)

[Bluegoat]

I am not really sure I understand how Wilfred Laurier or Concordia are "fourth tier universities"? That term doesn't even make sense in a Canadian context, IMO.

 

Ethnocentrism - It seems to me there is some real confusion about just what a classical education is. It is true that it normally focuses on Western sources. There is a good reason for that - it is intended to be an education given to people who are Westerners, either ethnically or by virtue of being raised in the West.

 

That is not because other perspectives are useless or less interesting or worthwhile. It is because the first task of education is to understand ourselves, our own cultural development and assumptions. Without that, it is much more difficult to look at the worldview of other traditions without unknowingly importing assumptions of our own that we are unaware of.

 

That is what a classical education is - one which teaches the tradition of Western thought. It can actually look very diverse in method and in the conclusions it draws about the tradition, at least theoretically, if it produces students conversant with that history - post-modernism is part of the Western tradition as much as scholasticism is. The difficulty with most modern education, which is I think what people who want to return to a classical model are worried about, is that it almost completely lacking in self-awareness. It produces students who have a broad but shallow knowledge of a variety of topics and traditions, but do not have any idea about the history or assumptions that form their own thinking, including the way they are thinking about those other traditions.

[Ester Maria]

I am not sure how I can reconcile professionally advocating a certain type of education without having received it, and to be on the board or staff of a classical education institute seems like a very odd precursor to obtaining a BA. But obviously your mileage may vary.

There is something to it.

To be more specific, I do not think having received it (as a child) should necessarily be a factor that makes or breaks the validity of somebody's claims, but having acquired it (eventually) - to a reasonably high level to professionally advocate for it - seems to me like a very reasonable request. In an exhange in which I am not a client paying for and expecting professional expertise, however, degrees and titles do not matter to me and I tend to focus on the content rather than on the person who produced it.

 

My problems with Mr. Kern in this context, thus, have nothing to do with his (lack of) formal education for what he advocates. In spite of knowing who he is now, I take him as any other anonymous username. So, his person is beside the point, I am simply not interested in him in this context.

Rather, I take an issue, first and foremost, with his very definition of classical education (which sounds like a complete mystification to me, "defined" in vague terms of virtue and alike, rather than sticking to a content-based definition), and from that point on, and I take an issue with his use of the word "truth" in the context of education (that post where he discussed truths and types totally did not resonate with me).

 

I also take MAJOR issues with some of literature approach and types of questions suggested, but that is where my own professional bias of a certain type enters - I would never discuss literature the way the thread turned around at one point. Honestly? When I read that sentence that "literature is an imaginative exploration and representation of reality (or falsehood", I called my 14 yo to point out to her one of those "learn from this what not to do" things. In the thread about the literary analysis, much of Mr. Kern's post was focused on what I perceive as questions which totally miss the point of the artistic text and how it differs from other types of text (the whole "should the character have done X" type of questions). Such an approach to literature is one of my pet peeves. This is not to imply, in any way, that Mr. Kern is not "entitled" to his own view and approach - he certainly is. And, in a way, regardless of our professional backgrounds, when it comes to educating our children, we are all equals in that we are trying to do the best we can, where we are, with what we have, and within our specific limitations (including our own biases from which we start). I cannot help, however, not to feel extremely uncomfortable with what I perceive as banalizations of the metier and a complete disregard for the fact that the content is not primary in the artistic texts (the information they are built out of is in and of itself beside the point), but their form (what is artistic in how the information is arranged and presented) and certain philological considerations which tie into it... and then we can build it up from there to even more complex matters, but that is the "grammar" of literature, if one can make such a comparison.

 

At the end of the day, however, Mr. Kern and I obviously stem from radically different worlds, different academic traditions, have come to different frameworks within which we conceive education, so it is only natural that we should part quite radically. I am simply not his intended audience, but he does seem to have a lot of success with a lot of people who find him inspirational. That is how it will always be, with any person or any topic - one person will thrive on what another person rolls their eyes about, a third person will find a random gem in it but overall not hold it in very high esteem, a fourth person... C'est la vie. Thankfully, the world is big enough for all of us to find like-minded people and educate in ways we consider to be right.

 

:D

[scrapbabe]

NASDAQ

 

 

 

Did I really say that classical home schooling will save America?

 

Gratefully,

 

ajk

 

Are you saying it won't?! :eek:

[justamouse]

The difficulty with most modern education, which is I think what people who want to return to a classical model are worried about, is that it almost completely lacking in self-awareness. It produces students who have a broad but shallow knowledge of a variety of topics and traditions, but do not have any idea about the history or assumptions that form their own thinking, including the way they are thinking about those other traditions.

 

 

Oh geez, now everyone's knickers are gonna get all twisted up again.

 

I don't disagree, but I'm just trying to warn you that it's all relative, you know. ;)

Edited March 28, 2012 by justamouse

[Bluegoat]

There is something to it.

To be more specific, I do not think having received it (as a child) should necessarily be a factor that makes or breaks the validity of somebody's claims, but having acquired it (eventually) - to a reasonably high level to professionally advocate for it - seems to me like a very reasonable request. In an exhange in which I am not a client paying for and expecting professional expertise, however, degrees and titles do not matter to me and I tend to focus on the content rather than on the person who produced it.

 

My problems with Mr. Kern in this context, thus, have nothing to do with his (lack of) formal education for what he advocates. In spite of knowing who he is now, I take him as any other anonymous username. So, his person is beside the point, I am simply not interested in him in this context.

Rather, I take an issue, first and foremost, with his very definition of classical education (which sounds like a complete mystification to me, "defined" in vague terms of virtue and alike, rather than sticking to a content-based definition), and from that point on, and I take an issue with his use of the word "truth" in the context of education (that post where he discussed truths and types totally did not resonate with me).

 

I also take MAJOR issues with some of literature approach and types of questions suggested, but that is where my own professional bias of a certain type enters - I would never discuss literature the way the thread turned around at one point. Honestly? When I read that sentence that "literature is an imaginative exploration and representation of reality (or falsehood", I called my 14 yo to point out to her one of those "learn from this what not to do" things. In the thread about the literary analysis, much of Mr. Kern's post was focused on what I perceive as questions which totally miss the point of the artistic text and how it differs from other types of text (the whole "should the character have done X" type of questions). Such an approach to literature is one of my pet peeves. This is not to imply, in any way, that Mr. Kern is not "entitled" to his own view and approach - he certainly is. And, in a way, regardless of our professional backgrounds, when it comes to educating our children, we are all equals in that we are trying to do the best we can, where we are, with what we have, and within our specific limitations (including our own biases from which we start). I cannot help, however, not to feel extremely uncomfortable with what I perceive as banalizations of the metier and a complete disregard for the fact that the content is not primary in the artistic texts (the information they are built out of is in and of itself beside the point), but their form (what is artistic in how the information is arranged and presented) and certain philological considerations which tie into it... and then we can build it up from there to even more complex matters, but that is the "grammar" of literature, if one can make such a comparison.

 

At the end of the day, however, Mr. Kern and I obviously stem from radically different worlds, different academic traditions, have come to different frameworks within which we conceive education, so it is only natural that we should part quite radically. I am simply not his intended audience, but he does seem to have a lot of success with a lot of people who find him inspirational. That is how it will always be, with any person or any topic - one person will thrive on what another person rolls their eyes about, a third person will find a random gem in it but overall not hold it in very high esteem, a fourth person... C'est la vie. Thankfully, the world is big enough for all of us to find like-minded people and educate in ways we consider to be right.

 

:D

 

Are you saying the primary purpose of literature is the form, not the content? I would seriously disagree with that, as would most of the Western tradition; I think great literature - great art really - is the marrying of the two. To try to evaluate any work on one side only would be impossible. How could one comment on Dante's success in The Divine Comedy without an understanding of what he is trying to express? And would he really be happy to have us read it while refraining from examining its truth, or lack thereof?

 

I also thing that the to some degree the discussion revolved around younger students, who tend to need to spend more time on content than on form when looking at literature studies. It is difficult for a child to evaluate form until they have a solid understanding of content and a broad experience of literary forms.

[Ummto4]

 

That is what a classical education is - one which teaches the tradition of Western thought. It can actually look very diverse in method and in the conclusions it draws about the tradition, at least theoretically, if it produces students conversant with that history - post-modernism is part of the Western tradition as much as scholasticism is. The difficulty with most modern education, which is I think what people who want to return to a classical model are worried about, is that it almost completely lacking in self-awareness. It produces students who have a broad but shallow knowledge of a variety of topics and traditions, but do not have any idea about the history or assumptions that form their own thinking, including the way they are thinking about those other traditions.

 

The bold should be the definition of Western Classical Education. Other cultures have their own 'classical education' too. And I bet they also teach truth, virtue, and beauty from their perspectives... :001_smile:

 

I agree w/ Ester Maria that the definition of Western Classical Education lays in content, rather than truth, virtue, and beauty. This is what makes Western classical education different from Islamic, CHinese, Japanese, and whatever else classical education out there in this world. TO equate Western Classical Education w/ education which teaches truth, virtue, and beauty, to me is like saying that you can only teach those via Western Classical Education, which is not true.

[Ester Maria]

Are you saying the primary purpose of literature is the form, not the content?

I do not think in categories such as "purpose" when it comes to the works of art themselves, I think it is a misapplied category.

 

I do think the primary purpose of a theoretical art instruction (as opposed to application) - whether we talk about music, visual arts or letters - is to individuate the formal principles upon which a work of art rests, relative to the means of expression particular to that art. Then there are secondary purposes, but the primary purpose is what you begin with.

I would seriously disagree with that, as would most of the Western tradition;

The very first work of poetics in the Western tradition deals largely with what would pass for formal considerations today. I do not understand how could one even begin to deny a definite thread of thought along those lines in the Western tradition.

I think great literature - great art really - is the marrying of the two.

... obviously, since one cannot exist without the other.

To try to evaluate any work on one side only would be impossible. How could one comment on Dante's success in The Divine Comedy without an understanding of what he is trying to express? And would he really be happy to have us read it while refraining from examining its truth, or lack thereof?

There is no "truth" as a category applicable to any work of art; even if the work of art encompasses within itself elements from the so-called "real world" (actual historical personages, places which really exist, etc.), they are given a new meaning in the context of a new structure of relationships with other elements of the work. Fictio is a separate category from either verum or falsum and its relationship with the reality cannot be thought of in categories of "truth" or "representation".

 

Furthermore, an author's opinion of his own work is not only not binding in any way, but hardly relevant for most considerations one could make. Even if we wanted, we could not read Dante the way he "intended" us to read it. It is also totally beside the point what Dante "tried" to express - I am certainly not going to be dealing with imputations of that kind, what I am interested in is what he expressed, not what he "meant" or "tried".

 

Dante's "success" (what kind of a category is that, anyway, in this context?) in the art of literature has little to do with the information contained there and much to do with how that information is organized and linguistically wrapped.

I also thing that the to some degree the discussion revolved around younger students, who tend to need to spend more time on content than on form when looking at literature studies.

Whoever deals primarily with content, with content as the purpose of studies, is not doing "literature as art" studies. They are doing "literature as history", "literature as a personally enjoyable story", "literature as sociology", "literature as philosophy", if you wish, but they are most certainly not focusing on those elements which make the text distinctly artistic.

It is difficult for a child to evaluate form until they have a solid understanding of content and a broad experience of literary forms.

Only if they are either badly taught, either have not reached yet certain cognitive nuances which would allow them to appreciate formal qualities of a work. Which is why most of "serious" theoretical art instruction tends to be postponed for the upper years.

[KirstenH]

Wow. Graduate Ed is widely available??? Have you priced that lately?

 

Seriously.

[In2why]

Wow. Graduate Ed is widely available??? Have you priced that lately?

 

And begs what question? That only someone with certain qualifications should teach others? Ironic on a homeschool board.

[Bluegoat]

I do not think in categories such as "purpose" when it comes to the works of art themselves, I think it is a misapplied category.

 

I do think the primary purpose of a theoretical art instruction (as opposed to application) - whether we talk about music, visual arts or letters - is to individuate the formal principles upon which a work of art rests, relative to the means of expression particular to that art. Then there are secondary purposes, but the primary purpose is what you begin with.

 

The very first work of poetics in the Western tradition deals largely with what would pass for formal considerations today. I do not understand how could one even begin to deny a definite thread of thought along those lines in the Western tradition.

 

... obviously, since one cannot exist without the other.

 

There is no "truth" as a category applicable to any work of art; even if the work of art encompasses within itself elements from the so-called "real world" (actual historical personages, places which really exist, etc.), they are given a new meaning in the context of a new structure of relationships with other elements of the work. Fictio is a separate category from either verum or falsum and its relationship with the reality cannot be thought of in categories of "truth" or "representation".

 

Furthermore, an author's opinion of his own work is not only not binding in any way, but hardly relevant for most considerations one could make. Even if we wanted, we could not read Dante the way he "intended" us to read it. It is also totally beside the point what Dante "tried" to express - I am certainly not going to be dealing with imputations of that kind, what I am interested in is what he expressed, not what he "meant" or "tried".

 

Dante's "success" (what kind of a category is that, anyway, in this context?) in the art of literature has little to do with the information contained there and much to do with how that information is organized and linguistically wrapped.

 

Whoever deals primarily with content, with content as the purpose of studies, is not doing "literature as art" studies. They are doing "literature as history", "literature as a personally enjoyable story", "literature as sociology", "literature as philosophy", if you wish, but they are most certainly not focusing on those elements which make the text distinctly artistic.

 

Only if they are either badly taught, either have not reached yet certain cognitive nuances which would allow them to appreciate formal qualities of a work. Which is why most of "serious" theoretical art instruction tends to be postponed for the upper years.

 

 

It is simply false to say this is the classical, or Western, position. It is a Western position, and I would say as such it is perhaps a classical position, but it is a fairly unique one in the history of Western thought. It was not held by the vast majority of people in the Western tradition. You can say they are wrong, but if you dismiss them you have simply dismissed the tradition itself - and then on what basis are you possibly defining classical studies?

 

I always surprised that anyone who thinks it is impossible to discern the meaning of an artist or content of an artwork has any interest in examining such things at all. How does one examine content and form together, as you suggest, if content is impossible to discern? How does such a work differ from a randomly generated bunch of numbers, or an heap of garbage? Can I randomly generate words in the form of a sonnet, and call it a perfect sonnet? What is the use of any discourse under those conditions, which surely must apply to all human communication and relationships? The most appropriate response, it seems to me, would be to remain silent and go live in a barrel. Not to write a sonnet, or the Divine Comedy, or even the Poetics.

[NASDAQ]

And begs what question? That only someone with certain qualifications should teach others? Ironic on a homeschool board.

 

The question as to why, if classical education is so important, the proponent has not attained one himself. And to forestall the inevitable, no, I do not think that it is possible for the ordinary person to self-teach Attic Greek at a graduate studies level.

 

Home schooling is something I am doing for myself and my own children. If I were to go into the business of schooling other people's children, I would need credentials. I am an amateur. Mr. Kern is a professional. Professionals should obtain industry-standard credentials.

[Ester Maria]

The question as to why, if classical education is so important, the proponent has not attained one himself. And to forestall the inevitable, no, I do not think that it is possible for the ordinary person to self-teach Attic Greek at a graduate studies level.

 

Home schooling is something I am doing for myself and my own children. If I were to go into the business of schooling other people's children, I would need credentials. I am an amateur. Mr. Kern is a professional. Professionals should obtain industry-standard credentials.

I was in the middle of answering the same question in another window when I saw your reply, and you worded it better than me. I agree with this distinction.

[Bluegoat]

The question as to why, if classical education is so important, the proponent has not attained one himself. And to forestall the inevitable, no, I do not think that it is possible for the ordinary person to self-teach Attic Greek at a graduate studies level.

 

Home schooling is something I am doing for myself and my own children. If I were to go into the business of schooling other people's children, I would need credentials. I am an amateur. Mr. Kern is a professional. Professionals should obtain industry-standard credentials.

 

You do not need a university qualification to have a classical education. It is pretty much that simple. I'd suggest that at this point in history, it is actually rather difficult to become really classically educated in a university, especially in North America. That isn't a situation without precedent - the Enlightenment for example was a period when the most interesting thinkers were typically not associated with universities.

 

You also don't really need to read Latin or Greek at a graduate level to be classically educated. In fact, it is pretty typical of many classics programs in universities these days to produce students who ave excellent Latin and Greek, but to have no classical education worth speaking about.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Bluegoat

[Joy at Home]

Me, but I think everyone knows that now.

 

I looked up Andrew Kern. He has a BA from a fourth-tier university, and I can't find any other education. That makes me suspicious.

 

I don't think he writes well and I think his pronouncements that CLASSICAL HOMESCHOOLING WILL SAVE AMERICA are hyperbolic to the point of being ridiculous.

 

Yikes :confused:

 

What is the point of this whole thread? My guess is the mods had the good sense to lock the other one because they saw it as being so divisive. We have a fellow board member being insulted, his credentials questioned, his education mocked, and it leaves me feeling, well, icky.

 

Circe may not be your cuppa, and you that's fine. We all have lots of thoughts on education and so does A.K. Yes, I understand he is a professional and NASDAQ, you think his educational background is relevant in this regard. But really, I see it as bad form to vocalize those opinions so openly here.

 

Lisa

[NASDAQ]

"You do not need a university qualification to have a classical education . . .

You also don't really need to read Latin or Greek at a graduate level to be classically educated. In fact, it is pretty typical of many classics programs in universities these days to produce students who ave excellent Latin and Greek, but to have no classical education worth speaking about."

 

I suppose we'll part company at this junction then, because I strongly disagree. If you have only read works in translation, you have not studied those works at anything but a very junior level -- any more than someone has studied Shakespeare because he read a retelling of it in contemporary language.

 

Mr. Kern also seems to disagree with you. He makes his living telling people that Greek and Latin are vitally important, yet he has attained proficiency in neither, and he sees neither as important enough to dedicate the time and resources necessary to gain that proficiency.