This is an archived page. Images and links on this page may not work. Please visit the main page for the latest updates.

 
 
 
Read my book, TEACHING BEAUTY IN DeLILLO, WOOLF, AND MERRILL (Palgrave Macmillan; forthcoming), co-authored with Jennifer Green-Lewis. VISIT MY BRANCH CAMPUS AT INSIDE HIGHER ED





UD is...
"Salty." (Scott McLemee)
"Unvarnished." (Phi Beta Cons)
"Splendidly splenetic." (Culture Industry)
"Except for University Diaries, most academic blogs are tedious."
(Rate Your Students)
"I think of Soltan as the Maureen Dowd of the blogosphere,
except that Maureen Dowd is kind of a wrecking ball of a writer,
and Soltan isn't. For the life of me, I can't figure out her
politics, but she's pretty fabulous, so who gives a damn?"
(Tenured Radical)

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

A Nation at Risk

After complaining about the tendency of American college curricula to rush to theory courses before teaching students the basics, Peter Berkowitz, in the Wall Street Journal, describes the terrible life consequences of this sort of education for students, and for the nation:

... [U]niversity education can cause lasting harm. The mental habits that students form and the ideas they absorb in college consolidate the framework through which as adults they interpret experience, and judge matters to be true or false, fair or inequitable, honorable or dishonorable. A university that fails to teach students sound mental habits and to acquaint them with enduring ideas handicaps its graduates for public and private life.

Moreover, properly conceived, a liberal education provides invaluable benefits for students and the nation. For most students, it offers the last chance, perhaps until retirement, to read widely and deeply, to acquire knowledge of the opinions and events that formed them and the nation in which they live, and to study other peoples and cultures. A proper liberal education liberalizes in the old-fashioned and still most relevant sense: It forms individuals fit for freedom.

The nation benefits as well, because a liberal democracy presupposes an informed citizenry capable of distinguishing the public interest from private interest, evaluating consequences, and discerning the claims of justice and the opportunities for -- and limits to -- realizing it in politics. Indeed, a sprawling liberal democracy whose citizens practice different religions and no religion at all, in which individuals have family heritages that can be traced to every continent, and in which the nation's foreign affairs are increasingly bound up with local politics in countries around the world is particularly dependent on citizens acquiring a liberal education.

...It is a mark of the politicization and clutter of our current curriculum that these elementary requirements will strike many faculty and administrators as benighted and onerous. Yet the core I've outlined reflects what all successful individuals outside of academia know: Progress depends on mastering the basics.

...Many [professors] will fight such a common core, because it requires them to teach general interest classes outside their area of expertise; it reduces opportunities to teach small boutique classes on highly specialized topics; and it presupposes that knowledge is cumulative and that some books and ideas are more essential than others.


It's helpful to put names to the curricular models Berkowitz here invokes: UD would suggest St. John's in Annapolis as one version of the common core he has in mind, and crazy quilt Brown University as the enemy.... And if you've read at all deeply in University Diaries, you know that UD has a lot of sympathy with what Berkowitz is saying.

Though she finds his writing pompous.

I wonder whether he's overstating the effect and significance of a four-year undergraduate education, however. He reminds me in this piece of poor Dana Gioia, the head of the NEA, who's always gadding about warning the nation that it will soon meet its doom because not enough of us are serious readers...

I think it makes more sense to defend a basic liberal arts curriculum by arguing that it may contribute to greater happiness, to a profounder reconciliation to the conditions of human life, and, since this sort of education tutors one in the particularities of suffering, to deeper empathy with other people. It's a little tricky, thinks UD, to make grand claims about the urgent political utility for a liberal democracy of what may turn out to be, on many college campuses, a matter of fine-tuning...