Educational Essentialism is Academic Gospel
Professor Aiuto of Montgomery College gave that speech on the merits of a liberal education at Hiram College in 1986 and also in my English 102 course twenty years later. And as the class discussed the matter, bringing up the same stereotypical points I’d heard hundreds of times before, I remembered my first day in that class. I often notice that my contemporaries take really almost no interest in education whatsoever. When it comes to pop culture and social interaction, most college students are absolutely enthralled, being so active and vibrant when engaging in either subject. Yet the moment they step into a classroom, their eyes suddenly glaze over and the little men in their skulls pull a lever, setting their brains to stupid.
The first day of English 102, Professor Aiuto introduced the class by going around the room and asking each student a random, sometimes personal question, to humor us, keep us interested, and get an idea of who we are. But virtually every student, after being asked to generate just a miniscule amount of wit and intellect would look up with their cow-like eyes, pause for a few seconds, and in their stupefied lull mutter the first thing which came to their mind, which was usually, “I don’t know.” Before he began asking questions, he had been going over the syllabus and the class seemed disinterested. But then, I remember one student interjecting and asking about how we were being graded throughout the year. Professor Aiuto replied by mentioning a certain page on our class’s syllabus and immediately, papers began rustling.
Of course, in this case at least, it wasn’t the professor’s fault because this is how it is in most courses, in my experience. Though my anecdotal experiences account for nothing, when I’ve relayed my perceptions to professors, they’ve agreed. Americans, if not the entire human race, is essentially suffering from an epidemic of apathy and ignorance. And unfortunately, a broad education apparently isn’t the cure. In western countries, we place such a heavy emphasis upon education. While there are other countries where foreign governments and societies in general couldn’t care less if each individual were an electrical engineer or a camel jockey. But surprisingly, those individuals originating from areas where no one but themselves urge them on do far better in American schools. And in India, computer science majors no longer travel in droves to American schools such as MIT for their degree, because America no longer has an educational competitive edge. For this reason, it’s rather clear that the solution to creating a better education, that is, more effectively educating people, is implementing a kind of intellectual social darwinism.
Of course, one must define ‘educate.’ Certainly, education is the passing of knowledge from one to another, but more than that, education itself is the passing of good knowledge. So, what knowledge is good enough that it should be known? Well, first and foremost, the knowledge which helps us to survive and be happy is worth more than that which does not. Because a person could memorize an encyclopedia, but if they are unaware on how to fend for themselves and live peacefully, they have nothing. It is definitely better to be a resourceful, happy fool that survives than a helpless, miserable scholar. The second most valuable knowledge is that which encourages us to do good for other human beings or, in other words, morality. Often, that word, ‘morality’ stings for some people, because of its connotations with arbitrary cultural norms, such as on homosexuality, interracial marriage, and so on.
But a large amount of poor moral arguments are no reason to denounce morality, as morality is practically synonymous with justice and righteousness, yet one never hears a person fume about another imposing their justice or righteousness on them. And because we can define good through scientific means, we therefore can attain a definition of objective morality based upon evidence and reasoning. By good, I mean that which human beings by our proven nature have positive and not negative feelings towards. And being that morality is at its heart nothing more than encouraging good for ourselves and others, and immorality is nothing but ignorance, the most valuable knowledge is that which promotes morality, which includes taking care of one’s own survival. All other knowledge beyond the scope of that is of equal value, not worthless, but still undetermined. Because we are not aware of what we don’t know, so all knowledge, aside from morality, has an unknown value that must be positive. Studying nuclear fusion may improve our lives or it might not, or it may even lead to another piece of knowledge which improves our lives. But one never knows until one gains that knowledge, so the pursuit of all knowledge is virtuous as well.
And this “educational essentialism,” does nothing to further the good through education, therefore it is dubious to refer to it as good education. Furthermore, cost is an issue. Why should someone working themselves through college barely above minimum wage, wanting merely a two-year Associates’ degree, have to pay for extra courses that are irrelevant to their degree of study? The entire reason why colleges have managed to get away with this silliness is their subsidization. Students’ economic incentive in this modern age is to get a degree in order to get a job and colleges’ economic incentive is naturally to gain profit. Had universities received no government subsidies, schools would suffer if they gave into the socialist interest of educational essentialism. Educational essentialism is really the secular counterpart to fundamentalist religion. Because truly, what evidence is there that English is a more important ‘essential’ than Greek, Latin, or Hebrew? What proof is there that it is best for an engineering major to have one arts credit and not two or three? Education does not require any essentials, such as math or english, anymore than Christianity requires fundamentals, such as trinitarianism or rejection of higher criticism.
And it isn’t illogical to attack a form of education while not being aware of that specific education’s content. Because while I cannot be aware of what I do not know, I can be aware of its consequences without being aware of its content, the same way that a cosmologist has never seen a blackhole, yet could still describe it in detail. Placing a value upon knowledge before gaining that knowledge is the only reason a person would ever seek an education to begin with. We do not know firsthand what it is worth, but we see many successful people with such knowledge and we are told that it is good. So, similarly, when we define what is good most rationally, define what our individual goals are, and through reason determine the outcome, the actual content of courses are irrelevant. It’s a rhetorical problem that can be solved algebraically.
So, in conclusion, degree requirements should be minimal, if not altogether eliminated. The concept of a balanced education is good for young children, but for older teenagers and younger adults it is useless because you can’t force someone to enjoy something. By merely imposing yourself upon them, you make it more likely that they’ll disregard you out of spite. Furthermore, in order to give context and not an ad-hominem to my critique, I must also mention that educational essentialism, whether intended or not, is basically a conspiracy designed to help humanities professors stay employed. Imagine for a moment if all of a sudden all colleges only required that you study within your own field to get your degree. The amount of jobs for professors, especially humanities professors, would plummet. Humanities dominate lists of degree requirements. So, of course, professors preach the academic gospel of how their definition of education is our savior. And while their goal may be noble, it’s a pipe dream that is counterproductive, does not encourage valuable knowledge, is costly for both the state and the poor, does not offer students a choice, all so that a few thousand professors won’t be out of work and can shove their secular fundamentalism down students’ throats.
