General Education: The Lost Purpose
of Higher Education
An essay inspired by Leon Botstein’s
book, Jefferson’s Children
Jesse Pittsley
Doctorate Student - Exercise Physiology
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
The single best decision I have made this
summer was to read the book Jefferson’s Children: Education and the
Promise of American Culture (1) by Lean Botstein. This book is
a very well written and wonderfully straightforward manuscript outlining
one man’s opinion on the current status and the possible ways to improve
education in America. I stumbled across this book after reading a
recent article in the Christian Science Monitor about Bard High School
(2), a school in New York City that Dr. Botstein had created.
Botstein, a long time president of Bard College (where he started his presidency
at an amazingly youthful age of 23) and director of the American Symphony
Orchestra, has a very holistic view of education and it’s role in our democratic
society.
We all have opinions on the current status
and overall role of education in America. Many have strong beliefs
on curriculum content, the role of family, religion, standardized testing,
and even when mandatory education should begin and end. Unfortunately,
most of our opinions are excessively influenced by our own personal experiences.
Many of our society, even the highly educated, have not been trained to
critically examine this issue from an emotionally removed perspective.
Resultantly, when things appear to be wrong, many look for educational
reform (often in a purely superficial manor) without allowing enough time
to transpire to fairly assess the specific techniques and concepts being
employed. Political candidates on both sides of the spectrum are
very aware that education is therefore a safe issue since it would take
longer than their potential careers to properly assess the effectiveness
of a specific learning scheme. As a result, educational perspectives
cycle every few decades, much like fitness fads, mimicking the shallow
arguments of the time.
Unlike many, Botstein does not share the
“doom and gloom” perspective of education in America that seems to dominate
much of the public rhetoric. He argues that a strong foundation,
from elementary to the graduate level, has been created in the United States
in the past several decades that would allow for some slight shifts (and
some that are not so slight) in format and content to improve learning
and effectiveness. I agree with this statement. I find many
of those who express a strong negative view do so on the platform of tradition
and/or moral decline and not from a performance or content perspective.
Although Botstein offers perspectives for change for all levels of education,
I would like to focus undergraduate level of university study since it
is more relevant to this setting. He states, and I agree, that undergraduate
schooling is a pivotal and crucial step in the creating of an educated
individual who is able to functionally participate as a member of our democratic
society. On possibly more than a just a theoretical level,
since each citizen has a vote, being a part of such a society places a
substantial amount of responsibility on each one of it’s members to critically
reflect upon the arising issues and thus make educated choices. Such
responsibilities necessitate that individuals be capable of dissecting
their own thoughts and emotions and perform the same procedure on the viewpoints
of other American citizens and world cultures. Without this, the
power would transfer to the few while the rest would be easily manipulated.
College, The Monetary Stepping-Stone
Botstein states, “In their ideal form,
the undergraduate years of college ought to be the time when an individual,
as an adult, links learning to life.” (page 186) Unfortunately, our
society has shifted to view undergraduate education as purely a vocational
stepping-stone designed only to create specific professionals.
Students often choose majors designed to directly train the students to
work in a particular field. At a basic level, choosing to major to
eventually earn a living a primary purpose of college. Unfortunately,
what has occurred has been a disproportionate shift towards this being
the only purpose for undergoing undergraduate education. Botstein
firmly disagrees with this vocational and monetary emphasis. Since
undergraduate education predominantly occurs at a very intellectually impressionable
age, this experience should serve as the final formal step in creating
the intellectual bridge between school, our society, and being a citizen.
This intellectually romantic “college should teach people to be citizens”
rant is not new. Simply stay awake during any freshman orientation
speech this fall and you’ll hear this melody. Thankfully, Botstein
goes beyond the usual academic stumping. For the final stage of his
book he builds the argument for a more holistic and interrelated undergraduate
curriculum. A curriculum and the melts together the currently fragmented
requirements into the general concept of interconnected critical reflection.
General Education Courses: The Black
Sheep of Curriculum.
Botstein emphasizes the value of general
education courses. Presently and sadly, these courses are often viewed
as speed bumps in the undergraduate experience. I recall hearing
a college advisor tell a student, “Use this semester to get some of your
generals out of the way.” Reading that statement out of its original context
would anger most serious academics. Why would an advisor and many
students not take enrolling into courses like philosophy, political science,
and environmental science seriously? These courses have distinct
value for developing citizens. Unfortunately, the advisor was probably
correct in using such phrasing considering the quality of many general
education courses.
Most institutions fail to take general
education courses seriously. These courses are often taught in large
lecture halls through a “survey” format with horrendous student to teacher
ratios. From the first day of class, neither the student nor the
teacher has been set up for success. How does one successfully grade
over 70 term papers? Furthermore, even if a grade is slapped down
on the document, how does one actually work to improve the student’s level
of analysis or writing technique? None of this happens. The
students are simply provided a bulk of information and then evaluated with
a multiple-choice test. There is little communication and all intellectual
growth is almost purely reliant on the inspiration level of the student
who also happens to be taking five other courses. It is an interesting
contradiction that a majority of general education courses are prime examples
of what not to do in education. This format causes such an intellectual
dilution that these curriculum equivalents of “cash cows” that beg for
the apathy that surrounds them.
The Holistic General Education Curriculum
One of the most common problems of education
is that, despite the emphasis on critical analysis, few take these skills
to other aspects of their lives. Botstein writes, “College ought
to be measured by the extent to which the curriculum influences dining
hall conversation and the kinds of entertainment students choose.” (page
197) At a time when more of America is educated than ever before,
the country should be consistently engaged in the most in-depth public
discussions of our history. Many would argue this is not occurring
and I would agree. So the question remains, is possible to
create more of an intellectually active citizen by modifying a post-secondary
curriculum? And if so, how would it be done?
General education courses are traditionally
isolated to the specific fields of the doctorate prepared individuals that
teach them. For example, Political Science is taught separate from
Philosophy, Logic is separate from Mathematics and so forth.
The burden is then placed on the educator and the student to make the connections
from course to course and furthermore, from college to life in a democratic
society. Such a cognitive connection is difficult when so many courses
are simultaneously taken and many students choose to focus on courses inside
their majors or that appear interesting while the rest are completed with
minimal attention. But this connection is crucial. Botstein
illustrates this points well by writing, “The study of philosophy, for
example, might be just the thing an undergraduate engineering major needs
to do to become an innovative engineer.” (page 196) To help encourage
transfer, Botstein designs his model general education curriculum through
the theme of integration. Some of the course titles include:
• Cognition and Communication:
Logic, Rhetoric (designed to teach oral and written argument).
• Individual and the Community: (a combination
of political science, sociology, and social and economic thought.)
• Integrated Science and Mathematics Sequence,
(a two year, four semester sequence)
• History Sequence: History 101:
The Paradoxes of Modern History. History 102: The Premodern
World: Europe, Africa, and the Americas before 1914.
• Philosophy and Politics
• World Religions
It is easy to see what Botstein is attempting.
Instead of hoping that each student will connect two areas such as philosophy
and politics, he simply combines them. The logic is so obvious one
must ask, "Why wouldn’t one teach written and oral argument in the same
course or combine mathematics and science?" What does one, especially
a student from another major gain from a stand alone lower level mathematics
course aside from the usual lessons of raw skill, thought sequence, and
possibly logic? Save pure mathematics for those who specifically
study it! Combine mathematics, statistics and the basic sciences
for the courses that all must complete. Students of other majors
would find ways to apply those topics to life and students that specific
majors would have a lesson in how to integrate their area with other areas.
Botstein shares a quick little story regarding a Professor in an area such
a philosophy or related area advising a student, “If you really are serious
about cultivation of intellect, study math and physics first.” (page 213)
Consequently, all students have a unique learning experience that is more
relevant to all students.
A glaring concern arises when examining
this admittedly utopian idea. Who is trained and prepared to teach
such courses? It would be a difficult reach for many to feel confident
while teaching topics outside their area of expertise. As a result,
colleges would have to develop training programs and outside seminars for
educators from various fields to teach these integrated courses.
This alone would stop most institutions from attempting to change.
This is unfortunate since, from a purely academic perspective, this creates
an ideal and almost unmatched interaction between individuals from different
content areas. For example, Psychologists, Sociologists, a Political
Scientists would have to brainstorm, organize, dissect and even compromise
to create the course Individual and the Community. Biologist, chemists,
mathematicians, and statisticians would have to collaborate to develop
appropriate lesions for the science block. Furthermore, this would also
force many Professors to address their ability to teach when they began
to reach beyond their content comfort zones. No longer could the
fall back on their wealth of isolated knowledge and meander from lecture
to lecture. They would have to design a course that would match the
expectations of experts in several departments and be held accountable
to those expectations.
Botstein’s curriculum accomplishes two
important goals. First, it integrates the study of several disciplines
offer student a universal and relevant platform for analysis. Schools
often take pride in offering a large variety of general education courses.
Although diversity is important, this design may fail to provide students
with a common knowledge base. With this format, almost all student
would able to discuss Plato or the role of statistics in environmental
issues. Second, this requires the faculty to break down the department
walls that often dived higher academia and force them to view the students
and content as a collective unit. This type of system encourages
the university to view students a collective product and to restrict the
various faculty members from “passing the buck” of student performance.
Conclusion
I have a personal bias that allowed me
to enjoy Botsteins book as much as I did. Unlike many other Exercise Physiologists,
I actually first enrolled in school as an Art major and also dabbled in
classical guitar prior to completing a degree in Physical Education.
Although I enjoy studying exercise physiology, I also enjoy philosophy,
politics, and film and have therefore chosen a life in academia for its
intellectual freedom. It was easy for me to be captivated by Botstein’s
perspective. He’s a true resonance man that is well versed in many
areas. More importantly, analysis appears to be his form of play.
While many people design their vacations and time away from work so they
can think less, he verifies there still is a section of the population
who finds critical analysis enlightening and energizing. It would
be a fantastic accomplishment if undergraduate curriculums would cause
more citizens to critically reflect upon the information they obtain.
As Botstein states, “Society’s enthusiasm for education is too often tied
to certification and to its utility. We may acknowledge that a degree is
essential for getting a job, but few Americans continue the habits of learning
and study once the degree program is over. . . When American adults want
to enjoy themselves, what they choose to do rarely connects with the agenda
of any school, either elementary of college.” (page 139-140)
Given that I have chosen the life of an
educator, I believe nurture can win over nature in this example.
I therefore believe that if a positive example is set and if students are
given direct lessons of how courses that are often perceived to be abstract
may actually be relevant, it would be possible to raise the level of public
discourse. Most agree that people can be taught to be better critical
thinkers, but, I also feel people can be taught, regardless of personality
temperament, to critically reflect outside places where it is required.
Although my belief may be too utopian, I think most academics would agree
that Botstein’s integrated curriculum is a far noble attempt to accomplish
this than what is currently offered by most institutions.
It would be wonderful if each summer we
all stumbled across a book that reawakened part of our soul. Botstein’s
love of learning and his ideas of how to modify the education system in
America to help others also discover this love was an invigorating read.
The book reminded that there are people out there who truly love to learn
and critically reflect and believe our society would be better if others
did the same. Academics often find themselves entrapped in a false perception
of solitude and believe that they are the only ones who wish they had more
time to think in the day. This book reminded me that despite the
popularity of “Reality TV,” full day news channels with skimpy superficial
coverage, and written-by-committee blockbuster movies, there are thinkers
who are trying to reach out and do their part.
References
1. Botstein, L. (1997). Jefferson’s
Children: Education and the Promise of American Culture. Doubleday,
New York.
2. http://www.bard.edu/bhsec/
3. http://www.bard.edu