Too much or too little culture?

[MikeW]

Lets go for a quick and telling review. You're in Switzerland where educational standards as well as intellectual standards are high. Probably most of the responders here are from the United States and have been subjected to arguably one of the worst public education systems in First World Countries. 30% of the teachers are not qualified to teach....anything. Students are there because the law says they have to be and although there's vague sort of curriculum, it's hardly followed. But one statistic I believes the complete failure of education in the United States more than any other; In 1960 the average graduating High School Senior had a working vocabulary of around 50,000 words. Today that number is down, way down, to 19,000-roughly that of a person of twelve years old. Can we infer that after twelve learning ends. No, not entirely but we might suggest it grinds to pace slow enough to make it pointless. Certainly there are some bright students in the public system but they've learned to just teach themselves. A library card and a few hours a week can be very educational.
Some years back Albert Shanker, then the head of the American Federation of Teachers, was asked what responsibility his union had to the students. His answer was that "I'll care about students when they have a union card in their hand and can vote.." Succinct, totally dismissive of education and with it the student. I would hazard to suggest that if you asked the average American to define either China or Chair they would have difficulties. To further ask them to make the connexion between the two based on those two words is almost from outer space.

Since we're both senior seniors lets explore this a bit. I consider myself a relatively intelligent person. If someone asked me to relate "China" and "Chair" (especially in spoken word without context) I would *assume* (wrongly in this instance) that what was being referred to were functional objects (dishes and furniture).

It is lamentable that the literacy in the US is declining. However, I feel the need to point out there is something few literate people recognize, literacy chauvinism. This is a subject that is of particular, and personal, interest to me because I was subjected to it ruthlessly as a child being educated in the US (1950s/'60s). I was a very bright kid but I was also the kind of kid that, today, would be diagnosed as having ADD (attention deficit disorder). I was also somewhat dyslexic in terms of my ability to read and write. Due to this my intelligence was not generally recognized by my teachers. In other words, "intelligence" and the ability to read, write coherent sentences, spell, punctuate and all that, were very closely interwoven. Since I couldn't do any of those things well, I was viewed as, well, an under achiever and nearly a 'slow learner'.

It wasn't until I (almost by accident) attended an experimental public high school in the mid-to-late 1960s that all that began to change. In *that* environment I had the opportunity to do two things I hadn't been able to do before: 1) explore visual expression (drawing, painting, photography, and three dimensional art forms) and 2) non-traditional learning modalities. Suddenly I began to excel in ways I'd not done before. I *still* couldn't read or write well (I remember getting 'As' over 'Fs' on my papers (the 'A' being for imaginative content, the 'F' being for the expression of that content in written form) from one English teacher who exclaimed, "I don't understand how anyone can misspell the same word four different ways in the same paragraph!" LOL. I went on to explain to her (remember this was in the 60s) that in the future this wouldn't matter because we would have (I didn't know what to call them, exactly) computerized spelling devices that would automatically fix this problem. Little did I know how right I was. (If it weren't for spell check, all of you would think I'm a total idiot!) However, the most important thing I learned from my non-traditional education is that *education* is on-going and life-long and can take *many* different forms. It isn't just reading moldy old books (although, of course, they, too, can have tremendous value).

It wasn't until I was in my mid 20s that I even *began* to lean to write a coherent sentence. People don't believe me when I say this but it is the absolute truth. I couldn't get my thoughts in order, I couldn't get the words to say what I meant them to. Writing anything other than a shopping list took me hours of hard, frustrating labor. Now, as you see, I can prattle on for paragraphs with barely a stop.

Where I'm going with this is two fold: First "language" is not limited to verbal and written forms (literacy). Art (in all its forms) *is* language. As someone who is more right-brained than left, the linear-sequential principals of literacy were a *hindrance* to the development of my innate intelligence. (Don't even get me started on "ADD" which I maintain is often neither a defect nor a disorder but a different KIND of thinking.) Second, our (US and Western) educational institutions and modalities have never recognized that "intelligence" is a far more complex subject than simple "literacy" (verbal acuity) can measure.

As for Albert Shanker's comment, it is truly despicable but completely understandable in today's (US) political terms. (No child's behind left, and all that.) Public education *is* boring and it *does* suck for many reasons, not the least of which is that it doesn't look at the uniqueness of each student but, rather, pours them all into a mold they're supposed to fit.

As I posted above, although I agree that "literacy" is declining, I'm impressed with the enormous energy and creativity of young people today. Yes they have their limitations and those are regrettable but (as someone who is surrounded by college students) I'm repeatedly impressed with how quick they are to adapt to new and challenging learning strategies.

I'll close by reminding everyone that public "literacy" is a relatively new phenomena in Western civilization (roughly 500 years or so, since Gutenberg). Native intelligence, however, has always been and will always be with us. What is needed is to recognize it, encourage it, support it and give it room to grow.

[HIkerSkier]

I would agree with several here, that not many would associate Mao with the word chair, or even chairman. But the fact that Swiss youth would not know who Mao was, is surprising. It shows how bad history may have been taught in their schools. For US students, it would not be surprising at all, since they are taught little history. A recent poll of American young people (not only youth) found that most could not locate Viet Nam on a world map - had no idea where it was. Do Swiss kids have a better understanding of history closer to home? Would they know anything about the Hapsburgs, the 30 Years War, or the Congress of Vienna? I would guess not.

[Charon]

What we learn about anything is to some degree geographic centred. I was raised in South Africa so know little of American History but a great lot about what was of interest in South Africa. (For example, we were taught that Irwin Rommel was a South African hero as his mission was to clear the British from Africa and then....we could control most of it.) Some "local" histories are just so long and convoluted-think India and God knows how many languages-that it's not surprising that what you learn if you were schooled there will be almost regional. If that sounds a bit tight, remember that the Indian population is very much village centred. I've had to learn the history of the world, in so far as I could, by being other places and finding out what they knew. Ever heard of the Gran Chaco War? The Fashoda Incident, The Russo Japanese War? All very important at that time and to certain groups but without meaning to someone ten thousand miles away. A friend in New Zealand once commented that they had to learn the history of other places as they had to little of their own.
To the Gentleman who had dyslexia. As odd as this may seem, I might wonder if in some ways it did you a favour? You had learned a tactile, sensate world, a world of observable ideas and then you received formal education that knit it all together. You had a more concise, complete education than that by rote that is so often and so unfortunately how much of anything is taught. (And, absolutely, ADD or ADHD are clever excuses I often think to expiate parents from doing a bum job of raising their children while given the children a "problem" that allowed them to act up or not learn because, they'd been told, they had a "problem". Of course in one sense they did but it wasn't the one nominated for them. And then there's Ritalin which shows every sign of passing both Aspirin and Valium as a best seller. I'm glad I'm old, likely to die before some skate boarder becomes President or worse, is allowed to teach what he knows to the young. Here's the kicker. I have Doctorates in Applied Math and Physics but I cannot even substitute teach as I never took education classes. And this holds true for the local University. They can pay me quite handsomely as a guest lecturer, but in a classroom? No.

[BillandChuck]

We find it fascinating every single day how little the up and coming young generation knows of history, recent or ancient..... or of the world. Someone above said to try finding someone who knows Eisenhower; to that we say try finding someone who can tell you who the last four presidents and vice-presents of the US are! It's amazing..... and it's very disheartening as it reflects the future of the world and how little our heirs will be prepared when we entrust it to them.

[Pix]

At least in the US our history has been so watered down at multiple levels so as to not offend anyone that it's a useless, boring sludge of meaningless facts to remember for the test and then forget. Textbook companies want to sell as many books as they can so offend as few as possible in marketing them. Schools don't want the parents offended. Schools are cheap punching bags for politicians so they avoid offending them as well.

I hated history taught in school but I read of it on my own at the library. I actually read too much because I got in trouble for it. One was when a textbook was wrong and the coach who taught the class (as Texas law says they have to even when not qualified) mocked me for it (granted, I questioned it because of an Iron Maiden song) so I went to the libraries and found 2 in the public and 1 in the school that all agreed with each other and disagreed with the textbook. That just got me into trouble for correcting the teacher in front of the class and the school library book was taken from me and never returned to the shelf of the school library (though the librarian said not to worry about it, she knew what happened...wouldn't give me any details on why it wasn't returned).

And that's not unusual. My favorite recollection by someone else was when a math teacher thought Hitler was a Communist and when a student corrected her he got in big trouble, too.

As for me I got into even bigger trouble for something I wrote and the footnotes I used (one a school library book and THAT book got taken off the shelves as well by the same principal who got rid of the other one I used).

Even when history WAS interesting it was, as I found out later, lies that appealed to the dominant parents in the community (heck, plenty of the boring history turned out to be lies as well). Though teachers only got away with it because textbooks wouldn't dare touch on anything controversial so that gave them carte blanch to make whatever they wanted to up. Not that it was the teacher's fault (not all the time anyway), if they wanted to keep their job then they kept the board happy who in turn wanted to keep the parents happy (at least the parents who mattered).

I suspect that it's like this in most to all countries...though I also expect most would deny it (and might sincerely believe themselves as they deny it because they never dug below the surface of it). I know that to some extent Russia, Japan, and China are that way...and observing the British and Argentinians on message boards discuss history (and call each other idiots) I think it must be true of them as well.

[MikeW]

...Even when history WAS interesting it was, as I found out later, lies that appealed to the dominant parents in the community (heck, plenty of the boring history turned out to be lies as well). Though teachers only got away with it because textbooks wouldn't dare touch on anything controversial so that gave them carte blanch to make whatever they wanted to up. ...

This is exactly right but it isn't only "parents" who do this. It is often pointed out that "history" is HIS (male gender) story, that is, the story that the 'winner' of whatever conflict chooses to tell. The story of the vanquished is often suppressed, if not utterly lost. So it is worth noting that "history" as taught in school is *often* not accurate or complete. If you're interested in an alternative history of the US, for example, see Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." It's what they *don't* teach you in school.

I'll go on to add that there is much *recent* history (since 2000) that is generally believed to be true but is not *in fact* true. Did you know that there are areas of academic scholarship that specifically explore this subject (what is believed to be true as opposed to historical fact)? This was an area of expertise for Philip D. Zelicow, who, very interestingly enough, as well as being a member of the US National Security Council, at one time held the title of "Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission." That is, the liaison between the (then) White House (George W. Bush and Dick Cheney), appointed BY the president for the sole purpose of, well, what exactly? What's to be made of the fact that the White House would only testify before the 9/11 panel if 1) they were not under oath and 2) the meeting was not transcribed? Is it at all relevant that the executive director of this 9/11 Commission (arguably one of the most profound historical events of our new century, given how much it has affected both national and international events) has this written about him on his Wiki page:

While at Harvard, he worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.""

The point here is that global policy makers FULLY understand that what is important in society is *not* whether or not history (or any supposed fact) IS actually true, but whether or not it is BELIEVED to be true. Who ever controls your perception of 'reality' (what you believe to be true) controls you. That is, your behavior will be based on what you honestly believe to be true, whether it IS in fact true or not. This becomes *especially* important in 'chains of command' where orders *must* be carried out without question.

But it isn't only that. Whole societies *have* to be controlled by "governments." For example, would the US have invade Iraque (a long time goal of the PNAC neo-conservatives whose policies became dominant after 9/11), had the American not *believed* that a) Iraque was involved in 9/11 (it was not) and 2) had weapons of mass distraction (WMD) (it did not) and was, therefore, an imminent threat to the national security (it wasn't)?

Just saying, this is no small matter you've stumbled on here. A healthy skepticism toward 'authorities' is one form of critical thinking. Not something those who want to maintain 'the status quo' necessarily foster in our educational system.

Edit to add this relevant and enlightening quote from Hermann Goering, Reichmarshall (marshal of the realm) of Nazi Germany, recorded during the war trials:

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

[princealbertofb]

I actually know a lot about Mao, but I doubt I would have made the connection between chair and Chinese.

I didn't think that they would make the link between chair and Chinese.... other than the one they made (making of furniture, cheaper than elsewhere). But it was when I mentioned the name Mao being called Chairman (I meant to teach them that connection and the second meaning of 'chair', or rather remind them of that second meaning) and it was the fact that they didn't know of Mao that surprised me, not the connection they didn't make between chair and Chinese... but rather the fact that they didn't associate Mao and China... because they didn't know who Mao was. Put like that, it sounds complicated. lol.

[princealbertofb]

I would agree with several here, that not many would associate Mao with the word chair, or even chairman. But the fact that Swiss youth would not know who Mao was, is surprising. It shows how bad history may have been taught in their schools. For US students, it would not be surprising at all, since they are taught little history. A recent poll of American young people (not only youth) found that most could not locate Viet Nam on a world map - had no idea where it was. Do Swiss kids have a better understanding of history closer to home? Would they know anything about the Hapsburgs, the 30 Years War, or the Congress of Vienna? I would guess not.

Just to let you know, these students were French, not Swiss... we just live close by.

[Eromir]

Hah, the previous generations have always complained about how stupid the new generation is.
What is considered important changes all the time. Knowledge accumulates over time and, naturally, some of it will become obsolete and some common knowledge might become specialist subjects.

I get the impression that education today depends more on what is portrayed in the media, than what is taught in schools. Our globalized media has an extreme "western" bias and is dominated by the United States. This also explains the popularity of Stalin, Lenin, Castro and Hitler. These were seen as direct enemies or the U.S. and therefore are talked about quite a lot. Oh, and Guevara's face makes a fetching t-shirt. China is neutral, more or less, so nobody cares. I doubt that many(myself included) can name the presidents of China or India, yet think it impossible that somebody might not know who Obama is. Slightly unrelated, but I think that media presence also determines how we perceive the value of human lives. No one gives a crap when several hundred people get killed somewhere in Sudan or Mexico, but when something like that happens in Western Europe or the U.S., it's blown up to apocalyptic proportions.