By Professor Doom
I’ve bemoaned
what’s happened to mathematics in higher education quite a few times. “College”
mathematics has been defined down, down, down, so that the material that is
today taught in the 10th grade is also taught today in college, as
College Algebra.
The reason for
this strange redefinition of terms is because administration has a stranglehold
over education. The rulers of our institutions don’t care about learning, they
care about butts-in-seats. Teaching difficult material, pushing human beings to
become better, is hard, and cuts into butts-in-seats. On the other hand,
teaching the same material everyone has already seen? That really helps keep
butts-in-seats.
The main reason
I’ve spoken of the dumbing down in mathematics is because I have a front row
seat to what’s happening in many of our universities and colleges, and I’m only
too happy to tell the gentle readers about it because you sure won’t get the
information from the media.
A recent
video from Prager University discusses what’s happening in the
liberal arts. I know, “liberal” is pretty much a slur nowadays, so allow me to
mention the “old” definition in this context: liberal arts refers to the
non-professional, non-technical, academic fields, such as literature,
philosophy, and, yes, mathematics.
Prager University
is not your typical university. It’s unaccredited. Again, this used to be a
slur, but nowadays that’s a badge of honor, since it means the school doesn’t
take Federal money. It’s no big deal, since they don’t have students; Prager U
concentrates on education, simply by providing their information for free.
Sure, they have a political agenda, but the gentle reader needs to understand
that our “typical” universities also have political agendas, and also take
Federal money, by the truckload. A reasonable person would conjecture that all
those Federal checks might set the university agenda. Yes, Prager has a biased
point of view…but at least it’s a point of view not influenced by Federal
money.
Anyway, their
video is called “Who Killed the Liberal Arts?” Curiously, the video doesn’t
attempt to answer that question (I can help with that), but does explore what’s
happened on “the other side of the campus” from mathematics, namely in English
Literature.
Allow me to
select some quotes:
“To get a
bachelor’s degree in English Literature…you must take courses in Gender, Race,
Ethnicity, Disability or Sexuality Studies….but you are not required to take a
single course in Shakespeare…”
I certainly grant
I’m no expert in English Literature, but Shakespeare is very influential in
Western Society, especially the English speaking part of the world. Even if I’m
wrong about this, I’m pretty sure when it comes to literature written by English
people, Shakespeare is rather a large figure.
And you can get a
whole degree in English Literature from UCLA, a top school, where you need not
be even passingly familiar with anything by Shakespeare. I’m not picking on
UCLA here--much as I’ve identified schools where you can get a Math Education
degree, even a graduate degree, without taking any math, Prager has identified
UCLA as a place where English Literature degree holders need not know the
basics of English literature.
I’ve
seen calculus courses not have even the concept of “derivative” in them, even
as faculty who present such courses get praise from administration for keeping
so many butts-in-seats. I find such courses shocking, and I can’t help but
suspect that at least a few English Literature faculty feel the same way about
offering degrees in English Literature that leave out a very key English
author.
Of course, the
opinions of academics are irrelevant in higher education, administration now
controls such things, and in much the same way they can influence course
content by firing faculty that don’t keep enough butts-in-seats (by eliminating
content), administration can also influence entire degree programs.
So, “boring”
courses on dull figures like Shakespeare are out, and “English Literature” is
redefined to the point it’s more fairly called “Sexuality Studies.” I know
students can’t be expected to know much, but at what point will students start
asking questions about taking coursework without content, and for acquiring degrees
devoid of major concepts and influential figures?
What’s the
purpose of the English Literature
degree, if not to learn about, you know, literature,
from, you know, England? UCLA
explains the purpose of the degree now:
“…to expose
students to “alternative rubrics of gender, sexuality, race, and class.”
“Rubric” is one
of those Educationist words, basically means a grading system, or measure. So
instead of evaluating English Literature, an English Literature degree holder
will learn how to measure all of humanity in terms of skin color and genitals.
In short,
Liberal Arts is leaving the building, to be replaced by Liberal Ideology, not
the same thing at all. According to the video, the purpose here is
“…to reduce
the stunning complexity of the past to identity and class politics.”
I really don’t care
what the purpose of the change is, except to note that the purpose is in
violation of the stated purpose of the degree program, of the purpose of higher
education: to help human beings improve.
Teaching our kids to reduce everything to terms of genital status and skin
color is not going to help them. I think actually studying the greatest works
of human literature is far more likely to help with that, and for English
Literature I think an Englishman like Shakespeare is rather appropriate….but I
concede I’m no expert here.
For what it’s
worth, I disagree with the video regarding the purpose of the change to
content-free degrees. The purpose of this shift is about butts-in-seats. It’s easier to sell genital-related courses
than it is to sell Shakespearean courses. So, Shakespeare out, genitals in.
The video blames
the faculty for this shift. Yes, faculty do have a responsibility for what’s
happened to higher education, but, bottom line, faculty are basically dead meat
on campuses now. I’ve seen faculty try to stop what’s happened in mathematics,
try to stop the re-defining of college material to the point that it’s simpler
than 10th grade math…these faculty are destroyed.
The initiatives
to dumb down the math didn’t come from faculty, and faculty were powerless to
stop it; those who tried were terminated. I very much suspect the same thing
happened in English Literature: the faculty there I’m sure didn’t work to
remove Shakespeare as a relevant figure, and I’m sure any faculty that tried to
stop Shakespeare’s removal were themselves removed.
While I disagree with the video’s claim
for why Shakespeare was removed, the video goes on to note that universities
formed in part to learn from the geniuses humanity has produced in the past.
This is certainly reasonable to say, and as good a 30 second introduction to
the beginnings of the Western university system as any. It’s a
worthy video, 5 minutes well spent, even if I don’t agree with all of it.
The video doesn’t
do a proper job of answering the question: who killed the Liberal Arts? Yes, I
often point the finger at our rulers of higher education as the primary
suspects, but a better question to ask is “What
killed the Liberal Arts?”
The answer to the
latter is the student loan scam. Endless money pouring in to higher education
made quality irrelevant, only a willingness to take the money. Administration
was willing to take that money, and a far too complacent faculty allowed for
control of higher education to slip from their hands, leading to the death of
Liberal Arts at many of our universities, even our prestigious ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment