Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!ncar!gatech!hubcap!shorne
From: shorne@citron (Scott Horne)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: _The Closing of the American Mind_ (was: Re: Cultural Literacy)
Message-ID: <2854@hubcap.UUCP>
Date: 25 Aug 88 04:32:32 GMT
References: <620@sdics.ucsd.EDU>
Sender: news@hubcap.UUCP
Reply-To: shorne@citron
Lines: 101

From article <620@sdics.ucsd.EDU>, by clark@sdics.ucsd.EDU (Clark Quinn):
> In article <2776@hubcap.UUCP> shorne@citron (Scott Horne) writes:
>>From article <1043@mmm.UUCP>, by cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard):
<<< 
<<< I've just been reading the book, "Cultural Literacy," by E. D. Hirsch, Jr.
<<< It's great.  Anyone who has anything to do with education in the United
<<< States (this includes having children in school) should read this book.
<<
<<Instead of reading _Cultural Literacy_, read Allan Bloom's _The Closing of
<<the American Mind_.  Every American (including schoolchildren--ESPECIALLY
<<schoolchildren) should read it!!
<<
< 
< I actually find both these books have interesting and valid points to
< make.*  I also feel that they address only parts of the problem.
< Hirsch is right, we do need to have a common cultural background to use
< as reference for communication.

Yes, we do (as you suggested below, how many people understand Bloom's
references to Plato, Rousseau, _Alle Menschen werden Br"uder_, &c.?).

< But we need more.  I believe Bloom,
< taking a broader view, is also right that we need to return to a set of
< cultural values, rationally examined, which include the importance of
< education.  I feel we need even more.  For one thing, both neglect
< cognitive skills.  Just having a breadth of knowledge doesn't insure
< that you can effectively use it for problem-solving, argument analysis,
< or any of the other practical applications required of the intellectual
< mind.

I, a potential Math or CS major (then again, I'm considering 8 other fields
and tons of double majors), would be interested in a scientist's views on
contemporary American education.  Norm Matloff and I have been discussing
American math education in soc.culture.china (yes, it does have to do with
Chinese culture).  He stated that Chinese and other Asian students generally
follow what in Chinese is called the "tian yazi de xuefa" (translation:
`the stuff-the-duck method of learning'); I disagreed, saying that the same
occurs in the US.  Among the examples I cited is the fact that many graduate
students in Math at a certain Southern university couldn't solve a very simple
problem involving merely knowledge of the circumference of a circle with
respect to the radius!  (For the problem, see soc.culture.china.)  Sure, any
grad student in Math could snap off "C == 2*pi*r" from memory, but how many
at this univ. could apply that to a very simple situation?

In short, I agree with you about cognitive skills.

< Anyway, I'm glad to see this discussion, we're talking about points
< very close to my heart.  I am writing up a dissertation that studies
< the effects of training on general cognitive skills.  The results seem
< to indicate that
<   a) even college students have some deficits in cognitive skills, and
<   b) that training can have an effect.

Interesting!  I've long known (a) and suspected (b).  When will this
dissertation come out?  I'd like to read it.

< BTW, I do *not* recommend that schoolchildren read Bloom, not because I
< think that his points aren't important, but his writing style is so
< dense that it might put off the average reader, even if they could read
< it without a dictionary by their side.  While you might argue that it
< is a good exercise, I would rather they get the exercise following up
< on Plato, etc after reading an accessible version of Bloom, for
< inspiration.

I agree that children (hell, even most adults!) would have trouble reading it.
However, I maintain that they should read it for several reasons:

1) It's certainly an informative work.
2) It may expose to them some of the problems of their schools.
3) It encourages reading--a habit which has all but died in children today.
4) It may motivate them to read Plato, Rousseau, et. al.; to listen to
   classical music & realize the impact of rock music on them;....
5) It may bring them to pursue liberal studies.
6) It may bring them to raise these and other issues with teachers and school
   officials.  (No, this is not farfetched or unlikely.)
7) It encourages *thought* and discourages categorical belief of everything
   they hear.

< *NB: As I indicated above, I haven't read Hirsch's book, I have read 
< a rebuttal by him to criticisms of the book where he reiterates the
< argument.  I am in the process of reading Bloom.  However, I believe I
< *have* gotten the essence of their positions.

I've read only a little of Hirsch; I'm going to buy a copy and finish it.
I, too, feel that I've "gotten the essence of their positions."

Hirsch's encyclopedia lists some of the famous composers but not others.  Why
is this?  Oversight?  Or is Hirsch trying to bias the encyclopedia (and thus
bias the reader) by excluding composers whose music doesn't appeal to Hirsch?
Perhaps Hirsch doesn't know much about music but is just throwing out a few
names from memory or from the sets of "100 Masterpieces of Music" and such
that are advertised on TV?


				--Scott Horne

uucp:		....!gatech!hubcap!scarlett!{hazel,citron,amber}!shorne
		(If that doesn't work, change "scarlett" to "scarle")
		(If *that* doesn't work, send to cchang@hubcap.clemson.edu)
		(If *that* doesn't work, wait until January & write me at Yale)
SnailMail:	Scott Horne, 812 Eleanor Dr., Florence, SC   29501
VoiceNet:	803 667-9848 (home); 803 669-1912 (office)