Classical Education: Cop-out
Alright, my “series” so far is pathetic. To make it more so, the second installment will merely be a selection of paragraphs from one of Doug Wilson‘s latest postings (italics are his):
[To persuade you to attend NSA] will necessitate an argument against the prevailing vocational paradigm in higher education. This is not to say that we are against students being vocationally equipped, but there will more about this shortly. Suffice it to say for now that there is a great difference between being vocationally trained and being vocationally prepared.
[...]
A true liberal arts education is not a specialty education. It is not one “major” among many. It is not the “major” that trains future English teachers the way an engineering “major” prepares a student for a career in engineering. This important to emphasize because in our current vocational training paradigm it is often the case that a young Christian man might not apply to NSA because he knows that he not called vocationally “to be a poet,” say. He knows he is going to run a business, and so he thinks the thing for him to do is take a business degree at the closest state university. Meantime, his sister likes poetry and stuff and so she can go to NSA. But this is one of the central confusions created by the vocational paradigm over against the liberal arts paradigm. We are not comparing students trained for a job and students trained for sitting around talking about Herodotus.
If the traditional argument for a liberal arts education is correct (as I believe it is), then the best preparation for the future businessman is not a narrow business degree, but rather a liberal arts degree. Again, a liberal arts degree is not a vocational degree. Over the last century and a half, the transformation of the American university system from one of liberal arts preparation for life into a vocational mill has been a truly profound transformation. And while there have been some blessings that have come from it, over all the impact on our civilization has been destructive.
A liberal arts education prepares the student for all of life in a way that nothing else does. Of course, it is granted at the outset that graduates must make their way in the world and that they must at some point be prepared in the specifics of their calling to do so. Specialty training in medicine, engineering, forestry, etc. is obviously necessary. But if we want those disciplines characterized by intelligence and wisdom, this specialty training needs to go on top of a liberal arts education and not instead of it. A graduate’s vocational calling is a very important part of his life, but a liberal arts education is not to be understood as a special kind of vocational training. Rather, it is a preparation of the man himself or the woman herself, not the inculcation of a particular skill set.
[...]
let me finish with what may seem like an inflammatory quotation on this subject from none other than C.S. Lewis. “You see at once that education is essentially for freemen and vocational training for slaves . . . if education is beaten by training, civilization dies. That is a thing very likely to happen.”
But the inflammatory nature of this is only superficial. He is not saying that to have a vocation makes you a slave. Lewis is saying that to be equipped for nothing else than to be a vocational cog in the industrial machine is to be a slave. And that is something that has happened in a profound way to our culture at large. Here at NSA, we are engaged in standing against that prevailing paradigm. But this is not because we want no engineers, but rather because we want better engineers. It is not because we want no doctors — we want better doctors. In the long run, nothing is more impractical than vocational pragmatism. Pragmatism doesn’t work.
We know that your sons and daughters may not be called to become teachers in classical and Christian schools around the nation (although some are). But if you get the vision of recovering the liberal arts paradigm for higher education, that is not a reason to dismiss NSA as an option. Does your son want to be a businessman developing new software? If he comes here, we will not try to talk him out of it. Rather, we will prepare him for that calling in a way that is second to none. How? Three years of Latin and Greek. Herodotus. Biblical theology. Rhetoric. Art and architecture. Great literature. Learning how to live, love, and think as a Christian.



Sorry Mystie,
The babies eat your brains and between Judah and the bun in the oven, so to speak, I have few left right now. I will try to philosophize about education a little later, perhaps. :-) Thanks for the quotes though – I sent my mom an email with links to your sight and to Doug Wilson’s blog so that she could set her head to thinking about the question.
Until later!
I thought it would give you something to rant on, but it can most certainly wait until the brains start coming back (or maybe we only adjust to working with fewer!)…so, maybe in 3 months! :)
There you go! I have a few theories on the traditional classical college education being considered absolutely essential… for the upper class who actually went to college in the old days when the vast majority of adults just learned a trade after highschool, but I don’t really know for sure. I’d have to do research, which I don’t feel up to at the moment. That and some thoughts I was having about evaluating the value of something based on the opportunity cost (the value of the second best alternative). For instance, a classical college education is inarguably a good thing, but is is worth the cost of the time and effort involved PLUS the benefit of the opportunity given up while you were pursuing it (a job, marriage, kids, debt-free existence, etc.) But these things just go through my mind while I’m doing dishes and they aren’t really coherent. And of course – I kind of separate the concept of a “classical education” from a college classical education – classical education could be a good thing, but that wouldn’t necessarily prove that a college classical education is the best option for a graduating high school senior. Anyway, I’ll try to give it more thought later… it might just be 3 months! :-)
I do think you have valid points for sure. I think in the ideal world (as it was in the old world) the classical college education would actually begin at 16 or 17…and maybe it could even be 2-3 years instead of a full four. Then after that you get your training. Really, a university degree is supposed to still do something similar…2 years of classes across the subjects, then 2 years focussing on your major. But the levels have been so dumbed down that the first two years really could even be done before junior year of high school (when we did it) for students well prepared, I think. Working at UI’s writing center and learning what English 101 was and trying to help those students was so discouraging! My 6th grade writing class, by the end of the year, could write better than most of the high school graduates taking 101 at UI. Their thinking wasn’t as sophisticated, but their skill and technique was superior. I became highly disallusioned there. So really, I think the ideal would be a reinstitution of higher standards in the current system and repealing our belief that everyone is entitled to a college education.
I know this is returning to an old post/subject, but I just read a book called “Safely Home” that proposes an entirely different approach than Classical Christian education. It’s main theme is that home-schooling is the ONLY way to go (even a Christian school environment is inferior, if not sinful!) and their whole take on what education is meant for and should include is a little different. I don’t think I agree with any of their biblical arguments, although some of their more practical reasons for home schooling were worth considering. I didn’t agree with most of the arguments actually and thought it was a little “if we had oranges (if the world still had apprenticeship type education for vocation) we could make orange juice (children could be entirely educated in the home and trained in their father’s “craft”), but again, it made me remember some of the arguments for homeschooling I used to hold to. Don’t really know what the point of this post was exactly, except that I was thinking about our somewhat abortive discussion of education and thought I should post my latest thoughts. :-)