A Good Education

17 A Good Education

Two friends – two women of European origin – were talking about

education, or rather about the kind of education that they had received

in their youth.

“I was very proud of myself when I finished college,” said one. “I

had received a classical education and I had been very happy with the

system. At that time, students were not allowed to select their own

courses; but even if I had been consulted, I would have chosen the

subjects of the school’s program. I liked history and literature; I was

interested in languages and past civilizations, in philosophy and music;

and even in some sciences, although I was not very good I that field. But

I enjoyed my studies and I felt that they were preparing me for life. I was

very shocked, after graduating, when I discovered that I – the good

student – couldn’t get a job. My degree would get me into a university

for further studies, but it couldn’t help me find work, because I had no

useful skill that would interest an employer. I have done well for myself

since then, but it was not easy to get started.”

Her friend laughed. ”You don’t know lucky you are,” she said.”I was

sixteen when I left school, and I went to work right away in the

accounting department of a big factory. I had received in my school all

the training I needed for my job, including bookkeeping, commercial

arithmetic, and typing. But I had never learned anything that was not

absolutely practical, I had never heard of ancient civilizations and ancient

languages. I did not know anything about music, and I would not have

recognized the names of the most famous painters of my own country,

whom everybody else seems to know. I had never discussed or even read

a book of any importance I id not know what ‘philosophy’ was. And this

is why, at forty, I am going back to school. I realize now that I have

missed something important, something that would make my life fuller,

that would give me great pleasure. I am going to make up for it. I am

going to get a good education at last.”

Between them, these two women illustrate clearly a question that

has been debated for some time, and which has not yet received an

answer acceptable to all: “What is a good education?”

* * *

What is a good education? Is it one that covers as much as possible

of human history and achievements, past and present? Or one that gives

graduates the ability to find employment promptly when they leave

school? Is it a broad education or a specialized one? Should it provide

students with a vast collection of facts, or merely train them to think?

Should a future engineer gain only the knowledge that will enable him to

do his job properly, or would a richer background improve his

professional ability as well as his personal life? The debate goes on and

on, with good arguments on both sides.

In the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries, the question was

not even worth asking. A good education was, of course, a broad one

based on the humanities. An educated man knew “something about

everything.” He was familiar with the great deeds and the great ideas of

the past. H e had read extensively; he was able to use his own language

correctly and ofthen elegantly. He could join in any conversation about

plants, planets, painters, or politics. He was at ease in the world, and he

knew that his education would open to him any career that he might

want to try. Even if he was mostly interested in literature, he had some

knowledge of the sciences and the techniques of his time.

But sciences and techniques have changed a great deal since the

latter part of the nineteenth century; and the world has changed too. It

has become more complex and increasingly specialized. There is much

more to know in every field. It is not only the scientist and the physician

who need a long special training now, but the administrator, the

computer expert, the accountant, and the business manager. Besides,

the multiplication of college graduates has made the competition for

jobs much harder than it used to be. The best qualified, the expert, wins.

American students started in the late 1930s to protest that college

was not preparing them for the “real” world, the working world, They

complained that they were getting too much useless knowledge and not

enough practical, up-to-date information in their chosen field. By the

end of the 1950s, the protests had become very loud. “Latin and art

appreciation are fine subjects for rich people who will spend their lives

traveling and visiting museums,” the students would say. “But we are in

school to get prepared for a career, a job. We have to learn a mass of

facts in our own field; why should we waste time on luxuries like music

or Victorian poetry, unless we are planning to become musicians or

professors of literature? Why force a future dentist to struggle with

French grammar, or a future businessman to know who Tolstoy was?

What good is Greek philosophy to an engineer? The humanities have no

value o the job market, and therefore they have no value for us.”

Not only did the students ask for changes in the list of required

subjects, but they also demanded the right to choose their courses

according to their own taste and future needs. No more established

programs, no guidance from educators and professors. All they wanted

was to get their degree as fast as possible and go to work.

Although the educators didn’t all agree, a majority recognized that

times had indeed changed and that education should perhaps adapt

itself to the realities of modern society. Colleges and universities revised

their programs to include a large number of specialized courses in

business, nursing, engineering, and other professional fields. In the

1960s they also added courses requested by the students because they

considered them “relevant” (Women’s Studies, Revolution, or Black

History) or useful (glass blowing, infant care, jogging, or family life). The

students were granted the right to choose their courses as they wished.

Many traditional subjects had to be dropped, including history and

foreign languages; the liberal education courses that were still available

were often neglected by the students, who didn’t feel like working hard

to learn something that was not required for graduation.

Whether the revised programs have helped college graduates to

find employment promptly is not clear. But after fifteen or twenty years

of experimentation, they have raised a lot of criticism. Some of it comes

from the graduates themselves, who discover that their practical

knowledge is neither deep nor flexible. As soon as they progress to

higher positions, they find that they need management training and

more study in their own field. Besides, they feel handicapped by their

lack of general knowledge; for example, by their ignorance of the

language and culture of the foreigners with whom they are doing

business. Most of all they suffer from their inability to use English, their

own language, easily and properly.

For their part, the employers complain that they see too many

“experts” who cannot write a simple report, analyze a problem, think

logically, and defend or even present their own ideas. “Besides,” say the

employers, “the ideas they do have are neither broad nor bold. They

seem unable to see a situation ‘from above’ in a mature way. And,

perhaps because of a lack of self-confidence, they are not willing to take

responsibility, to take charge of operations. They are followers, not

leaders.”

The supporters of traditional education are not surprised. They have

always maintained that maturity of thought could only be gained by the

study of past thinkers and past events. In their view only a thorough

intellectual training can give a person the ability to look at contemporary

problems “from above,” in a sophisticated way. They remind the

complainers that the purpose of a college education is to enrich and

train the mind; it has never been to help graduates get a beginner’s job.

Just as military academies are not trying to train lieutenants but future

generals, the colleges were established to produce future leaders,

directors, ambassadors, and thinkers. And, they add, this broad

education was flexible because it was never limited to a marrow

“speciality”; it could open many doors. They give as an example the

British professor of philosophy who, at the beginning of the Second

World War, became Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Supplies –

head of the war production industries of his country. He did a good job,

not because he knew much about war industries at first, but because he

had a well-trained mind, ready to reason and to handle any problem

with confidence.

What is a good education? The question is far from answered. Once

more, colleges and universities are revising their programs; they drop

“fun courses” and reestablish some of the traditional subjects neglected

since the 1960s. Many great schools are again requiring the students to

take a number of classes in English, history, literature, the social sciences,

philosophy the natural sciences, and art if they want to get a degree.

Meanwhile, the experts are trying to define the “good education” of our

time. Obviously, the purely vocational training once favored is not

enough. But neither is the gentleman’s education of the nineteenth

century. Educational programs must meet the demands of a modern

world where men and women have to work and to deal with enormous

problems.

What, then is a good education at the end of the twentieth century?

Some educators suggest that it should include foreign languages and the

study of foreign cultures; a mastery of English, including the ability to

write and speak well, because communications have become

all-important in the modern world and also because “a person who

doesn’t speak and write clearly doesn’t reason clearly either”: some

knowledge of the social sciences (sociology, psychology) that deal with

human relations and human problems; some basic knowledge of modern

science, which would enable future voters to be better informed about

current problems like nuclear energy. Finally, many educators insist that

all college graduates should be familiar with computers and modern

information systems, since the educated professionals of tomorrow will

have to understand their machines. Is that all? “No, of course not,”

answer the educators. “We have not mentioned the two great building

blocks of education: history and literature!”

* * *

Is this truly the best modern education? Perhaps. But every

educator would add or subtract a few subjects. And no matter what list

of courses would be offered, it would not be approved by all. Not only do

the professors have their own ideas on the matter, but the students have

theirs too. “I don’t believe,” protested a Harvard student when his

university revised its programs, “I don’t believe that colleges have the

right to define what an educated person is.” But then, who has?