Liberal Arts Education

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I first read this idea in Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. I mentioned this in a post over two months ago. Comrade 313C7 iVi4RX immediately suggested that I start a thread about it. I put it off for a while, and then forgot about it. I was reminded recently, and here is the long-awaited (for at least a few of us) thread.

Many of the capitalist "Robber Barons" (the monopolists and oligopolists of industry in the late 19th Century) donated a lot of money to universities and libraries. This is, of course, seen in mainstream circles as a tremendous and un-selfish act of charity. But is it?

Zinn explained that this philanthropy is actually an investment in prolonging the capitalist system. Liberal arts colleges do not teach us how to join the ruling class, or how to deconstruct that ruling class. The products of these institutions become a middle class buffer between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, or the "guards" of the system as Zinn calls them later. By funding libraries, one can ensure that it will be filled with bourgeois books.

In a more recent example of investment disguised as charity, look at Bill Gates putting computers in schools. The children are going to be taught and raised on Windows platform computers, and will likely use Gates' hardware and software for the rest of their lives. It is a marketing coup!

What do you think? Your opinions?

[Iepilei]

Steve Jobs did the same by signing contracts to put Mac's into schools. Atleast in my old school district, they did.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Right. We had mostly Macs in the public schools here. Of course, I think we paid for them. Gates can undercut the sweetheart deal between schools and Apple computers by giving them away.

[Jesus Christ]

that doesn't mean that the school has to accept Windows machines in their school
85% of all computer education in the United States is Apple dominated, and growing because the schools feel the need to have what everyone else does

in a way it is a marketing coup, but you also have to realize that it is helping to educate children who would otherwise not have access to a computer at home
its one of the only ways in a capitalistic system to receive the best education, and isnt that bad if you look at it, the only drawback of it is the profit made by the corporation
its sad, but schools in the States are now being over run by big business, and that just furthers the decline of mom and pop businesses
and any private business in the US is better than the government

and hey, at least Apple gives schools quality computers at a great price

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Please! Do not let this topic turn into a discussion of computers! Does anyone have anything to say about the bigger points of my first post?

liberAL,

Though the computers in schools may be the only ones some children will get to use, that is not the reason that Gates or Jobs wants to flood their hardware and software into the schools. It is all about dollars and cents, and that means indoctrinated the next generation of consumers with your operating system. Again, going back to one of the main points above, this is an investment more than any kind of charity.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 23 2003, 08:37 PM
Please! Do not let this topic turn into a discussion of computers! Does anyone have anything to say about the bigger points of my first post?

liberAL,

Though the computers in schools may be the only ones some children will get to use, that is not the reason that Gates or Jobs wants to flood their hardware and software into the schools. It is all about dollars and cents, and that means indoctrinated the next generation of consumers with your operating system. Again, going back to one of the main points above, this is an investment more than any kind of charity.
of course it is an investment, and Jobs and Gates trying to flood these schools is wrong also, yes, but these schools are accepting their hardware and software
there is nothing that is gonna change that
but back to MY main point, its the United States, what are these schools gonna do? make their own computers?
they have to get with the times somehow, and this is one of the only ways of doing it in the States
I dont support big business, but they need computers somehow
if they werent making a profit off of this, they would recall every single computer from these school
theyd do it in the poorest parts of the States if they werent making a profit
its a win - lose situation, emphasis on the loss, but a thumbs up for education

[Pete]

What do you mean by "the liberal arts?"

Do you mean an education in history, religion, philosophy, art, ect ect that generally goes past the mere political history available in other courses? If that is the case, then my "Bachelor of Humanities" degree I'm striving for (I think I am in "Liberal Arts" stream opposed to "Double Major" stream) is an example of how these "Liberal Art Colleges" (It is called the "College of the Humanities") teach us to deconstruct the current political system and all religious and cultural systems. I am half way through year one, and I am able to see the basics of this in a greater detail then before I arrived. That may be, though, because my personal reason for coming here was to see how humanity has progressed to its current state, and by examining the past I can understand how we got to where we are today.

But perhaps I am mistaken by what you mean by "liberal arts" and in that case, what I just said may be irrelevant.

-Pete

[praxis1966]

Most of the time you'd be right, MiN. Although, sometimes these donations are used so that rich parents little brats can get into universities for which they haven't fulfilled the entrance requirements (our president, to name one). As a matter of fact, I'm not sure which is the bigger mystery: the Bermuda Triangle or how GW Bush got degrees from both Harvard and Yale.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 07:09 PM
What do you mean by "the liberal arts?"

Do you mean an education in history, religion, philosophy, art, ect ect that generally goes past the mere political history available in other courses? [...] these "Liberal Art Colleges" (It is called the "College of the Humanities") teach us to deconstruct the current political system and all religious and cultural systems.

praxis,

You make a good point about Resident Bush. He spent several years at two top-notch Ivy League schools. It did not seem to temper his aggression or his fundamentalism, did it?
First of all, by liberal arts I mean the curriculum of especially American high schools and four-year universities (or six or eight, basically not tech or trade schools).

What do you mean by the "mere political history available in other courses"? Which history? Which courses?

You say your liberal arts education has taught you how to deconstruct various systems. First, how critical were you when you started going to college? Second, have you heard any practical solutions for the problems being discussed? What is being taught as far as how to change the world?

[Pete]

First of all, by liberal arts I mean the curriculum of especially American high schools and four-year universities (or six or eight, basically not tech or trade schools).

This is not a definition of what liberal arts is. I mean, what do you study in them? Or are you just going to criticize an entire catergory of learning without even understand was is learned within them?

Political history is about wars battles who was king who was president ect ect. Cultural history strikes at a different level, what was thought, what was believed, what they drew, why they did this, how this affected the next generation, ect.


how critical were you when you started going to college?

I am a cyncic, was before I got here. I question things that make sense as things that dont make sense.


Second, have you heard any practical solutions for the problems being discussed?

You are assuming that I am being taught by one teacher with major themes that are problems. Any ducation that gives me the answers of the problems is not worth my time or money to be in it. I am here because it proposes questions, or gives me the knowledge to ask good questions, and I must, my self, find the answers. I am not a drone, and if they give me answers I will just question them until I have my own answer.


What is being taught as far as how to change the world?

As I said above, I am being taught about humanity and civilization. Myths, symbols, religions, philosophies, ways of life, ect ect. The biggest question available after getting a background is "WHY?" which I ask. And when I have that answer, and can understand how the world has changed, do you not think it will be easier to see how it can change in the future?

I think you are criticizing something with no or little knowledge of it, or as I said before we are not talking about the same thing.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Pete,


This is not a definition of what liberal arts is.

I know. My argument, clumsy in its delivery, is not about liberal arts itself per se. My focus is on what is taught in social science classes--the apologetics for capitalism and imperialism, the denial of existence of alternatives, the emphasis on training for life as a cog in the status quo's machine. Perhaps I should have said, "Social science departments in liberal arts education", but that would probably be too long a name for a thread.

My argument is actually concerned with history teachers teaching imperialist history, business teachers glorifying business, sociology teachers being uncritical, or economics teachers being uncritically pro-capitalist.


what do you study in them?

I am a social science student myself. I am likely to major in history or sociology.


Political history is about wars battles who was king who was president ect ect. Cultural history strikes at a different level, what was thought, what was believed, what they drew, why they did this, how this affected the next generation, ect.

Thanks for the definitions. I do not object to political history, necessarily. I do resent top-down political history. What about abolitionists fighting to get the U.S. government to abolish slavery prior to the Civil War? Is that not political history as well? Cultural and social history are clearly vital to having a solid understanding of how and why in history, but political history has its place as well.


I am a cyncic, was before I got here.

So you have had a critical attitude for some time. What Zinn is getting at, and I tend to agree, is that secondary and post-secondary education does not work very hard to create an attitude critical to the power structure. If one has a critical attitude, I think the liberal arts experience can be an opportunity to learn so much. We need to have a filter for all this information, however. We have to be able to decide for ourselves whether our often bourgeois professors have the proper focus or angle on their subjects.


You are assuming that I am being taught by one teacher with major themes that are problems.

I am most certainly not assuming that. All I am asking is if the individuals who are discussing problems are offering ideas for solutions.


And when I have that answer, and can understand how the world has changed, do you not think it will be easier to see how it can change in the future?

Sure. Knowledge is power. All I am inquiring about is whether you are getting the right knowledge from your college education...

[Pete]

My argument is actually concerned with history teachers teaching imperialist history, business teachers glorifying business, sociology teachers being uncritical, or economics teachers being uncritically pro-capitalist.


Ahh. So it was a misunderstanding. I've never had that problem. Even my teachers with obvious right (and left and no) slant proposed atleast one alternative, and didnt say why they didnt like it. They presented them in the same manner as the other ones, but with slightly less emphasis. If that is not done in your school, then something is obviously amiss.


I am learning. I forgot to mention one of my classes is on deconstruction Myth (it is Called "Myth and Symbol") and the decussion groups are pretty good shows of how some people refuse to open their minds to the new ideas present (like the Christians who are unable to attempt to understand hinduism as anything but lesser than christianity and not a real religion). Perhaps that is my highschool background of teachers that enjoyed getting both sides rilled.

Top-down is a good example of what I mean by 'political history' where as bottom-up is usually what I mean by 'cultural history'

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Nice topic MiN.

I agree on most of what you say.

Yet, I want to know why you point out the secondary and higher in particulair. It seems to me that the education system would rather try to put more effort in influencing children at a younger age. Especially because children are more influental at a younger age.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Nov 24 2003, 12:21 PM
I want to know why you point out the secondary and higher in particulair. It seems to me that the education system would rather try to put more effort in influencing children at a younger age. Especially because children are more influental at a younger age.
You are right about children being more easily influenced in primary school... when they are younger and more impressionable. I suppose the emphasis on secondary and post-secondary education is because that is when we really begin to start discussing politics and social issues seriously. I do not personally remember any reinforcements of capitalism coming down on me when I was in elementary school, or through most of middle school.

[praxis1966]

Well, look at it this way. In my college, there's only one class in comparative national government. The three types of government covered in it (at least according to the description in the catalogue) are democracy, republic, and dictatorship with historical case studies of each.

Granted I haven't taken it, but it appears to me that there's been a lot left out. It's as if to say that these are the only types of government to have ever existed, to the exclusion of, say, democratic socialism. In any case, you're likely never to see courses on governmental theory, unless perhaps you're a graduate level public policy student.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

praxis,

Your example does not at all surprise me. The only alternative to a capitalist republic is a dictatorship, be it fascist or Stalinist. Typical...

I think you are right about graduate students getting perhaps a more sophisticated education in theory, but so few of us wind up graduate students--for a number of reasons.

[Alejandro C]

i think that americas system of liberal arts colleges serves as one of the primary reinforcements of the capitalist system. it does this by further widening class divides. the structure itself is the mechanism. poor kids go to poor schools and hardly expect to go to college much less be prepared by the public school system. rich kids will go to better schools, but the main difference is that middle class and upper class students are EXPECTED to attend university. its been said in america for the last forty years that if you don't have a college degree you wont get a good job. so these kids are taught that you go to class to get the grade, you go to school to get the degree. fuck learning. but lately in america its becoming more severe, now you are not likely to get a 'good job' without going to graduate school. through societal pressure middle and upper class people are in school for until they're mid to late twenties. at which time they have school loans up the ass and are FORCED into working at any job they can get for the next ten years to pay back the loans. which means self determination for the middle and upper class comes only in the mid to late thirties when they've received their so-called education and have payed it back. by this time they're within a company and will spend the rest of their days working to get to the top.

meanwhile the lower class is done with school and able to do for self when they are out of highschool. however their restrictions come not from school and loans but from income. it is excedingly hard in this country to get a job that you can support yourself with on a highschool education. so the poor get low paying jobs where their income goes to passing the day to day neccesities of life leaving them trapped in a wage-slavery.

more to the point of your question... at my school you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that can remember things from a class that they took last year. like i said classes are taken simply to get the grade. no one here cares about education, its disgusting. what would they care about going to a politics class. our political science department is one of the smallest departments in the school. we have about six kids from my class and about 30 overall. that includes co-majors. so out of 6000 thirty people care about politics enough to seriously study it.

if education was socialized i believe things would be much different. if school was free than there would not be this idea that you have to have a college education to get a good job. people might realize that education is about self improvement, not about buying a piece of paper with a diploma on it. also it would open the oportunities of the poor to go to college (much more aid than scholarships and grants is needed)

though i frequently hear that the united states is the most educated country in the world i'd have to think that people have degrees but the rampant ignorance makes me think that the current college system SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK to educate people but most often simply acts as a mechanism for reinforcing and widening class divisions.

also univeristies as they are act to physically seperate the classes. the upper classes physically go to different schools than the middle class, and the lower class of course usually stays in their community with other lower class people. this provides not only for so-called educational seperation but social seperation, which has just as deep psychological effects.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

You make interesting points about the nature and emphasis of "education" in the U.S.

By making college expensive, and compelling people who cannot afford it to go anyway (or else work at McDonald's till you drop dead), the people do incur massive debt and have to work full-time to afford to pay off the loans. As you can be fired arbitrarily, and the elite largely hate leftist politics or unionizing, being a part of the left creates the danger that you will be driven to bankruptcy.

School is all about getting the diploma. Getting the diploma is only about passing the tests. Passing the tests requires memorization of things deemed important by the professors, who are usually bourgeois in their thinking. For someone who does not care about, say history, and is only taking a class because it is required, they can easily absorb the slant of the professor.