ACTA's Must-Reads

JAMA ON ACADEMIC UNDER-PERFORMANCE

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/298/22/2684?rss=1

From the abstract --

"Concern about ne�er do well sons is ancient. In a quote attributed to Socrates by Plato, Socrates laments, "The children now live in luxury . . . and love chatter instead of exercise." Leonard Sax, a family physician and research psychologist, continues this tradition in "Boys Adrift," arguing that there is a growing epidemic of unmotivated boys and underachieving young men. Five factors are identified to account for this proposed decline: (1) feminization of education; (2) video games; (3) increased prescription of psychotropic medications that affect the motivational systems of the brain; (4) exposure to endocrine disrupters; and (5) lack of heroic role models.

"Excellent and informative references and information are provided, particularly about the impact of the first-person shooter games such as Grand Theft Auto and the strong correlation between the amount of time spent playing these games and the frequency of acts of violence and aggression."

The U.S. is at a cross-roads. One path requires dedication to only to maximum performance levels. The other requires the same old methods that got the U.S. to its current mediocre status.

Will the U.S. continue its decline to second-class status? The next year will tell that tale.

Bauerlein has been milking the “fluff” angle for a while now, and the critique never gets much more nuanced than what he offers here. A few thoughts:

1. Bauerlein’s critique is strictly from a St. Johns “Book List” view of education. The idea that universities produce professionals who take up careers such as advertising, graphic design, and commercial architecture seems not to have crossed his mind. For students looking to such careers, a freshman seminar that studies the design of a Starbucks or the structure of a popular television show might be important.

2. Which is to say, we could have a decent argument about liberal arts vs. professionalizing education, but Bauerlein commits the logical error known by my high school students as “begging the question.” He assumes that it’s self-evident that college education should be about Great Texts, and then argues that schools are failing to meet that goal. He doesn’t stop to consider – or, better put, he doesn’t stop to inform his audience, for Bauerlein certainly knows better – that many universities are interested in professional training.

3. Bauerlein’s canon-centered vision of education also elides the fact that much of education is about passing on skills, not humping through a reading list. (We don’t read Euclid much these days to learn the skills of geometry.) When I teach my ninth graders the fundamentals of plot and narrative analysis, I begin with seemingly simple texts: folk tales, myths, comic strips, television shows, etc. I’m not telling my students that Dilbert is as good as Pope; instead, I’m using a text that, in its often subtle abstraction, highlights certain techniques that students can more easily learn to identify. Such scaffolding is a research-proven “best practice” in education. Thus, a freshman seminar on South Park that used the show to scaffold techniques for analyzing narrative, the relationship between word and image, satire and parody, etc., might actually attract college students to more important works of visual and literary art. Once students begin to master certain skills, they are more likely to move on to more challenging and more rewarding intellectual tasks. (Let’s remember that the idea behind freshman seminars is to introduce students to disciplines, ideas, and skills that they might not be attracted to. The pre-med student who gets hooked on literary analysis by examining comic books might never have known that he wanted to study literature before.) Some disciplines are as much about great skills as great texts.

4. Bauerlein also neglects to tell his audience that within the canon-based notion of education, there is much debate. Why The Federalist Papers before, say, the vast Jewish, Islamic, Vedic, Greek, or Latin literatures on politics? In terms of world importance and historical primacy, Bauerlein again begs the question. Likewise, it’s easy to agree that students should read Virgil, but then again, they should also read Leo Africanus, Li Po, the Hindu and Chinese epics, Epicurus, and the Pearl Poet. At that rate, American History and American Literature seem like “fluff” courses.

5. (But just because canons are debatable does not mean I’m against canons. Students should study great texts, and students should learn important skills.)

6. Bauerlein’s hysteria about American history, though, suggests that he’s not simply interested in The Best That Has Been Thought And Said. Instead, he assumes – begs the question again – that American education should make Americans. Why should students know American history rather than, say, Chinese history? Universities are not the place to make citizens. The professional ideal of education is about making good workers; the liberal arts ideal is about making good world citizens. But Bauerlein wants to make good American citizens. The fact that most Americans think that Islamic culture is an oxymoron is as worrying to me as the fact that Americans can’t name the first five US presidents. The Islamic preservation of Western culture is of far more historical import than, say, the War of 1812.

In the end, let common sense prevail. Universities should have rigorous distribution requirements. But these requirements must be balanced against (a) the students’ need for professional training; and (b) the students’ desire to pursue their interests. And distribution requirements should be text-based, culture-based, period-based, and skill-based.