Classic education

[reetpleat]

While posting in another thread, I thought of something I have long considered. What do you think of a classic education. I spent most of my college days studying writing and whatever interested me. While I learned alot, a lot of the focus was also on the idea of "teaching a student how to think, be creative etc." I now have my doubts as to the value of that. I suppose if you need it, it is good. But I didn't. I have always thought that way, and was drawn towards stuff like that because of it. I am not sure how much I really benefitted.

Sometimes i wish I had gone to an old east coast school maybe and pursued a rigorous classic education. Maybe learned latin, history, the cannon of dead white men writers, classic mythology, grecoroman european american philosophy, and maybe science and mathematics.

Would I then be a well rounded, well educated person, or would I have just learned a small body of knowledge valued randomly by a certain class of white european and americn people. what about non elglish literature. what about other cultures, philosophy and religion of the rest of the world etc.

Was the classic education meant to give an upperclass person the basics they would need to get along in that world? Were they meant to educate the future business and political leaders of the country? Or were they meant to really produce a well rounded, intelligent person.

Who knows? What do you think.

 

[nyx]

The thing is, the classic education is still available to anyone at almost any college. You just have to choose to take the classes that fit that. For example, at the college I went to, I didn't have to take creative writing or post-modern feminist literature to get my English degree. Some core classes were required, but I chose which electives to take, and I happened to like dead, white guys myself. So, I took a lot of classes about 17-19th century British writers, which had a female or two thrown in, but also included a lot of the "canon." I also minored in political science, but chose as my electives all of the courses that dealt with political philosophy, rather than modern political science. And I could have easily taken Latin, but chose French instead. I'm not a big science/math kind of person, so I only took the basics there, but I wasn't limited to that.

The one thing about higher education is that anyone can take out a student loan and go back if they desire. You may not get into an Ivy League school, but you can easily go and take classes at any University if you have a degree already.

I think I'm fairly well-rounded, but I still pursued my interests. However, even after a BA and an MA in English, I'm still nothing close to an expert in Literature. Nor did I end up working in English at all. I work in pharmaceutical drug development [huh] So, honestly, I think the whole purpose of college is the piece of paper you get at the end. I don't think a classic education really prepares you for anything. However, you can CHOOSE to get something out of it in terms of interesting knowledge. It's really up to the student what they get.

 

[Paisley]

About six months ago, I had a thread called "My classical education," or something like that. My degree is in mechanical engineering (talk about having doubts about the value of a degree), so I didn't learn much of the classics.

The Teaching Company has a large selection of lectures by top professors available on CD and DVD. Your library may have some of them.

 

[Decodence]

I think it is a shame that charm/finishing schools went the way of the dodo for the most part. Women today don't behave like women.

 

[nyx]

I think it is a shame that charm/finishing schools went the way of the dodo for the most part. Women today don't behave like women.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not behaving like women." Do you mean not wearing dresses or choosing to work outside of the home or how to set a table correctly? That could cover a lot of different things, so you should probably specify.

Also, I think that's a bit of an overgeneralization. There are plenty of girls who think that some men aren't gentlemanly enough too. But it's not ALL men or ALL women.

I know an older woman who went to finishing school. She was a nice lady, but frankly, didn't seem different from any of the other women I worked with.

 

[Decodence]

I'm not sure what you mean by "not behaving like women." Do you mean not wearing dresses or choosing to work outside of the home? That could cover a lot of different things, so you should probably specify.

Also, I think that's a bit of an overgeneralization. There are plenty of girls who think that some men aren't gentlemanly enough too. But it's not ALL men or ALL women.

Most men aren't gentlemen. Shame on that too.

Dresses, manners, general behavior. I also don't agree on working outside of the home if there are young children in the picture. A mother belongs in the house, not in the workforce so the "family" (I use that term very loosely given the poor condition of most modern families) can afford 2 SUVs, a boat, 2 vacations a year, and a McMansion.

People are materialistic nowadays, and anti-social to boot. People have a TV in every room, and children retreat to their caves to watch TV, play video games, play on the internet instead of spending time with their family.

I see these young girls nowadays walking around with "JUICY" written across their buttocks. Women and men out in public in what I can only describe as pajammas. Men walking around like they pulled their clothes out of a dumpster. Blech.

 

[nyx]

I also don't agree on working outside of the home if there are young children in the picture. A mother belongs in the house, not in the workforce so the "family" (I use that term very loosely given the poor condition of most modern families) can afford 2 SUVs, a boat, 2 vacations a year, and a McMansion.

Ouch. I have a young child at home, but I have to work to keep a roof over my head, since my husband left. Everyone has different situations. I guess that's what I mean by overgeneralizing.

There have been lots of discussions though about modern youth, etc. on the lounge though, so search the threads and you might find something that interests you. We are sort of fftopic: with this though.

 

[Paisley]

Agreed. Not sure what charm schools and women working outside the home have to do with a classical education.

 

[Decodence]

Agreed. Not sure what charm schools and women working outside the home have to do with a classical education.

Are finishing/charm schools not considered classical education for ladies?

 

[Miss Neecerie]

based on the Wiki version of Classical Education...no.

Classical education developed many of the terms now used to describe modern education. Western classical education has three phases, each with a different purpose. The phases are roughly coordinated with human development, and would ideally be exactly coordinated with each individual student's development.

"Primary education" teaches students how to learn.

"Secondary education" then teaches a conceptual framework that can hold all human knowledge (history), and then fills in basic facts and practices of the major fields of knowledge, and develops the skills (perhaps in a simplified form) of every major human activity.

"Tertiary education" then prepares a person to pursue an educated profession, such as law, theology, military strategy, medicine or science.


Primary education

Primary education was often called the trivium, which covered grammar, logic, and rhetoric.

Logic and rhetoric was often taught in part by the Socratic method, in which the teacher raises questions and the class discusses them. By controlling the pace, the teacher can keep the class very lively, yet disciplined.

[edit] Grammar

Grammar consists of language skills such as reading and the mechanics of writing. An important goal of grammar is to acquire as many words and manage as many concepts as possible so as to be able to express and understand clearly concepts of varying degrees of complexity. Very young students can learn these by rote especially through the use of chant and song. Their minds are often referred to as "sponges", that easily absorb a large number of facts. Classical education traditionally included study of Latin and Greek, which greatly reinforced understanding of grammar, and the workings of a language, and so that students could read the Classics of Western Civilization in the words of the authors. In the modern renaissance of classical education, this period refers to the upper elementary school years.

[edit] Logic

Logic (dialectic) is the art of correct reasoning. The traditional text for teaching logic was Aristotle's Logic. In the modern renaissance of classical education, this logic stage (or dialectic stage) refers to the junior high or middle school aged student, who developmentally is beginning to question ideas and authority, and truly enjoys a debate or an argument. Training in logic, both formal and informal, enables students to critically examine arguments and to analyze their own.

[edit] Rhetoric

Rhetoric debate and composition (which is the written form of rhetoric) are taught to somewhat older (often high school aged) students, who by this point in their education have the concepts and logic to criticize their own work and persuade others. According to Aristotle "Rhetoric is the counterpart of dialectic." It is concerned with finding "all the available means of persuasion." The student has learned to reason correctly in the Logic stage so that they can now apply those skills to Rhetoric. Students would read and emulate classical poets such as Ovid and others in learning how to present their arguments well.

[edit] Secondary education

Secondary education, classically the quadrivium or "four ways," classically taught astronomy, arithmetic, music and geometry, usually from Aristotle and Euclid. Sometimes architecture was taught, often from the works of Vitruvius.

History was always taught to provide a context, and show political and military development. The classic texts were from ancient authors such as Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, Cicero and Tacitus.

Biographies were often assigned as well; the classic example being Plutarch's "Lives." Biographies help show how persons behave in their context, and the wide ranges of professions and options that exist. As more modern texts became available, these were often added to the curriculum.

In the Middle Ages, these were the best available texts. In modern terms, these fields might be called history, natural science, accounting and business, fine arts (at least two, one to amuse companions, and another to decorate one's domicile), military strategy and tactics, engineering, agronomy, and architecture.

These are taught in a matrix of history, reviewing the natural development of each field for each phase of the trivium. That is, in a perfect classical education, the historical study is reviewed three times: first to learn the grammar (the concepts, terms and skills in the order developed), next time the logic (how these elements could be assembled), and finally the rhetoric, how to produce good, humanly useful and beautiful objects that satisfy the grammar and logic of the field.

History is the unifying conceptual framework, because history is the study of everything that has occurred before the present. A skillful teacher also uses the historical context to show how each stage of development naturally poses questions and then how advances answer them, helping to understand human motives and activity in each field. The question-answer approach is called the "dialectic method," and permits history to be taught Socratically as well.

Classical educators consider the Socratic method to be the best technique for teaching critical thinking. In-class discussion and critiques are essential in order for students to recognize and internalize critical thinking techniques. This method is widely used to teach both philosophy and law. It is currently rare in other contexts. Basically, the teacher referees the students' discussions, asks leading questions, and may refer to facts, but never gives a conclusion until at least one student reaches that conclusion. The learning is most effective when the students compete strongly, even viciously in the argument, but always according to well-accepted rules of correct reasoning. That is, fallacies should not be allowed by the teacher.

By completing a project in each major field of human effort, the student can develop a personal preference for further education and professional training.

[edit] Tertiary education

Tertiary education was usually an apprenticeship to a person with the desired profession. Most often, the understudy was called a "secretary" and had the duty of carrying on all the normal business of the "master." Philosophy and Theology were both widely taught as tertiary subjects in Universities however.

The early biographies of nobles show probably the ultimate form of classical education: a tutor. One early, much-emulated classic example was that Alexander the Great was tutored by Aristotle.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_education

 

[Mike in Seattle]

Are finishing/charm schools not considered classical education for ladies?

I would have to say not. Charm schools were to teach things like diction; poise; the art of conversation; how to dress, groom, walk, talk & behave more...don't shoot me down for this...but more ladylike I guess you would say. I think these days, what was known as a charm school / finishing school decades ago has become something more along the lines of a modeling academy.

But I believe Reetpleat was talking more about types of college education or higher learning. That would apply to both men and women.

 

[nyx]

Based on Miss Neecerie's post then, what you received, Reet WAS a classical education, if you were taught how to question and critique. Very Socratic

 

[Paisley]

Are finishing/charm schools not considered classical education for ladies?

Charm and etiquette aren't the same as a classical education. They both have their value, though. If a woman's education, along with her character and abilities, are a stone, charm school is the buffer that gives it a smooth finish. (I'm sure you've heard of a diamond in the rough.) Although it should be obvious that the stone is more important than the finish, experience doesn't always bear this out.

 

[carebear]

The difference between the "teach how to think" and a true Classical education lies in the structure.

As Miss Neecerie's posts point out, you can't "learn how to think" until you have been exposed to basic facts and information (rote learning) and then learn how other people thought about those subjects (the classics and the canon of DWM's thoughts about the classics) and then learn logic so your thoughts have a defensible structure and lead to valid and true conclusions.

Only at that point are you armed with the knowledge and skills to "think for yourself" without needlessly duplicating the thoughts of others or coming up with unsupportable or illogical conclusions. Witness the fairly recent trend of people claiming "feelings" are as valid a basis for decision making as logical reasoning and the inability to disagree on a topic without resorting to name calling. The loss of logical reasoning in the general populace is what has led us to our modern politics of "feeling pain" and soundbite solutions.

Of course the other benefit of a true classical education is that it was designed to be universal within a culture. You could have a discussion with another person and be operating from the same dataset and vocabulary even if your views on a topic were opposite.

 

[reetpleat]

based on the Wiki version of Classical Education...no.

Classical education developed many of the terms now used to describe modern education. Western classical education has three phases, each with a different purpose. The phases are roughly coordinated with human development, and would ideally be exactly coordinated with each individual student's development.

"Primary education" teaches students how to learn.

"Secondary education" then teaches a conceptual framework that can hold all human knowledge (history), and then fills in basic facts and practices of the major fields of knowledge, and develops the skills (perhaps in a simplified form) of every major human activity.

"Tertiary education" then prepares a person to pursue an educated profession, such as law, theology, military strategy, medicine or science.


Primary education

Primary education was often called the trivium, which covered grammar, logic, and rhetoric.

Logic and rhetoric was often taught in part by the Socratic method, in which the teacher raises questions and the class discusses them. By controlling the pace, the teacher can keep the class very lively, yet disciplined.

[edit] Grammar

Grammar consists of language skills such as reading and the mechanics of writing. An important goal of grammar is to acquire as many words and manage as many concepts as possible so as to be able to express and understand clearly concepts of varying degrees of complexity. Very young students can learn these by rote especially through the use of chant and song. Their minds are often referred to as "sponges", that easily absorb a large number of facts. Classical education traditionally included study of Latin and Greek, which greatly reinforced understanding of grammar, and the workings of a language, and so that students could read the Classics of Western Civilization in the words of the authors. In the modern renaissance of classical education, this period refers to the upper elementary school years.

[edit] Logic

Logic (dialectic) is the art of correct reasoning. The traditional text for teaching logic was Aristotle's Logic. In the modern renaissance of classical education, this logic stage (or dialectic stage) refers to the junior high or middle school aged student, who developmentally is beginning to question ideas and authority, and truly enjoys a debate or an argument. Training in logic, both formal and informal, enables students to critically examine arguments and to analyze their own.

[edit] Rhetoric

Rhetoric debate and composition (which is the written form of rhetoric) are taught to somewhat older (often high school aged) students, who by this point in their education have the concepts and logic to criticize their own work and persuade others. According to Aristotle "Rhetoric is the counterpart of dialectic." It is concerned with finding "all the available means of persuasion." The student has learned to reason correctly in the Logic stage so that they can now apply those skills to Rhetoric. Students would read and emulate classical poets such as Ovid and others in learning how to present their arguments well.

[edit] Secondary education

Secondary education, classically the quadrivium or "four ways," classically taught astronomy, arithmetic, music and geometry, usually from Aristotle and Euclid. Sometimes architecture was taught, often from the works of Vitruvius.

History was always taught to provide a context, and show political and military development. The classic texts were from ancient authors such as Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, Cicero and Tacitus.

Biographies were often assigned as well; the classic example being Plutarch's "Lives." Biographies help show how persons behave in their context, and the wide ranges of professions and options that exist. As more modern texts became available, these were often added to the curriculum.

In the Middle Ages, these were the best available texts. In modern terms, these fields might be called history, natural science, accounting and business, fine arts (at least two, one to amuse companions, and another to decorate one's domicile), military strategy and tactics, engineering, agronomy, and architecture.

These are taught in a matrix of history, reviewing the natural development of each field for each phase of the trivium. That is, in a perfect classical education, the historical study is reviewed three times: first to learn the grammar (the concepts, terms and skills in the order developed), next time the logic (how these elements could be assembled), and finally the rhetoric, how to produce good, humanly useful and beautiful objects that satisfy the grammar and logic of the field.

History is the unifying conceptual framework, because history is the study of everything that has occurred before the present. A skillful teacher also uses the historical context to show how each stage of development naturally poses questions and then how advances answer them, helping to understand human motives and activity in each field. The question-answer approach is called the "dialectic method," and permits history to be taught Socratically as well.

Classical educators consider the Socratic method to be the best technique for teaching critical thinking. In-class discussion and critiques are essential in order for students to recognize and internalize critical thinking techniques. This method is widely used to teach both philosophy and law. It is currently rare in other contexts. Basically, the teacher referees the students' discussions, asks leading questions, and may refer to facts, but never gives a conclusion until at least one student reaches that conclusion. The learning is most effective when the students compete strongly, even viciously in the argument, but always according to well-accepted rules of correct reasoning. That is, fallacies should not be allowed by the teacher.

By completing a project in each major field of human effort, the student can develop a personal preference for further education and professional training.

[edit] Tertiary education

Tertiary education was usually an apprenticeship to a person with the desired profession. Most often, the understudy was called a "secretary" and had the duty of carrying on all the normal business of the "master." Philosophy and Theology were both widely taught as tertiary subjects in Universities however.

The early biographies of nobles show probably the ultimate form of classical education: a tutor. One early, much-emulated classic example was that Alexander the Great was tutored by Aristotle.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_education

Sounds exactly like what I wish I had. Of course, i would want it to include history beyond greco roman european, and various perspectives. But I like that.

 

[reetpleat]

Based on Miss Neecerie's post then, what you received, Reet WAS a classical education, if you were taught how to question and critique. Very Socratic

Not at all. Most of my college education was sittin around talking, but not in a particularly rigoruous way, demanding of logic. And not the historic and cultural elements.

 

[carebear]

reet,

Regarding mixing it up a little. The whole point of the classical education was that you had the tools to go forward and continue your education on your own. Folks with such educations tended to be "renaissance men" who continued studying things all their lives.

People without the skills to analyze materials on their own are pretty much at the mercy of whatever is put in front of them.

In the case of modern American colleges, that often ends up being indoctrination, not learning.

 

[Ecuador Jim]

As I recall...

A classical education included a tour through the Humanities, Philosophy, Art, and Science. This was supposed to give the student a basic understanding of the world and Western Civilization.

I had the option of replacing a foreign language requirement with a class in BASIC, at a time when many people were questioning the value of the "classic" education. There was a critique that college needed to push courses that helped people deal with the "real world".

I think a classic education does produce a well-rounded person. If nothing else, it assists in giving more people common points of reference.

 

[Classics]

While posting in another thread, I thought of something I have long considered. What do you think of a classic education. I spent most of my college days studying writing and whatever interested me. While I learned alot, a lot of the focus was also on the idea of "teaching a student how to think, be creative etc." I now have my doubts as to the value of that. I suppose if you need it, it is good. But I didn't. I have always thought that way, and was drawn towards stuff like that because of it. I am not sure how much I really benefitted...
Who knows? What do you think.

As a product of that sort of education (undergraduate major in Classics, minor in Philosophy) and a purveyor of it (graduate student in Classics), I wholehearted support it.

The intensive study of grammar (in the Classics) and critical thought and formal logic (in philosophy) teaches, well, critical thought. Translation exercises and Latin and Greek prose comp. classes teach style and grace in writing; additionally, the student will probably pick up a decent ear for poetry and a flair for jubilant phasing.

Study of literature as literature and philosophy as how to think about the world and live one's life teaches, well, everything human really. "homo sum, nil humanum alienum mihi puto," "I am a human, I think nothing human alien to me" (Terence said it). Doctors of Humanities are doctores humaniorum litterorum- Doctos of Humane Letters, in opposition to those Doctors of Divine Letters. Until recently, this was the educational distinction made.

Plus, it doesn't get much better than Homer.

 

[Classics]

Not at all. Most of my college education was sittin around talking, but not in a particularly rigoruous way, demanding of logic. And not the historic and cultural elements.

To borrow a cliche, "they were doing it wrong."