Ok, so a "Liberal Arts" education looks good on a job resume. Great. So who cares? What does it even mean? Are these just flowery words that represent the illusion of choice? What does it mean to be "well-rounded" and why does it matter? I am a product of a "Liberal Arts Education," and am paying about 4 years of my beginning teacher's salary to be here, so it's gotta be something great, right?
The philosophy behind the "Liberal Arts Education. Bottom line, cliche phrase: we want (because Luther wants, because employers want, because society demands) us to be "well-rounded" citizens. What does well-rounded mean? Here are some definitions I found from the all-knowing source called 'the internet.'
1. rounded in shape or well developed a well-rounded figure
2. full, varied, and satisfying a well-rounded life
3. well planned and balanced a well-rounded program
Well, it looks like the U.S. has got number one under control!
No, but really, I'm going to cut the crap now. To a certain extent, I think most people strive to be somewhat "well-rounded," or "balanced" in life, just as I believe all humans strive to be educated. Being well-rounded (skilled in different areas of life) is not only useful and practical, but adds to the meaning we each find in life. We all have different inclinations toward "creativity," in different areas of life and gain satisfaction from pursuing our interests.
The Liberal Arts Mission Statement of Luther College:
As a liberal arts college, Luther is committed to a way of learning that moves us beyond immediate interests and present knowledge into a larger world—an education that disciplines minds and develops whole persons equipped to understand and confront a changing society.
Sounds great in theory, right? I seriously wonder, though, if this is even possible, or at least, in the place of Luther College to try and accomplish.
Life is about choice - in the end, we're always going to be held accountable for our decisions. So is "well-roundedness" something that can be taught, much less forced? On a superficial level, yes. Through different forms of extrinsic motivation (i.e. a diploma), Luther is able to force students to complete enough classes to make it look like they are well-rounded, diversely-minded citizens. But does this really mean anything? Does this really mean that students from Luther College are going to graduate with a greater knowledge/appreciation for diversity in this world? In my opinion, of course not. Learning is a choice. And to me, this forced "liberal arts" education is only an illusion of choice.
Perhaps the perspective of Music Education folks is a little different on this topic, since we are essentially double majors (whose education minors are bigger than our music majors) and almost every class we take within our major and minor requirements satisfy our general education requirements. I'm not complaining because if this were not so, I would be in college for 6 years! I can count on one hand, however, the number of classes I have taken by choice in college - partial choice, really, since the choice I make is guided by a particular category of study (i.e. I chose to take Islam to satisfy my religion requirement).
This is all part of the liberal arts education philosophy: we are required to show our well-roundedness by satisfying different requirements - we just keep checking them all off our lists until we graduate. Is this REALLY what it means to be a well-rounded individual, if indeed that is our inclination and goal as humans?
Truly Well-Rounded, or just an illusion?
Just as I believe a teacher's job is not to fill a child's head with knowledge but to provide opportunities to facilitate learning, I believe the job of an institute of higher education, such as Luther College, is not to force students to be well-rounded, but to provide opportunities for students to choose well-roundedness, because I believe that choice is the key to true learning.
What if we didn't have general education requirements? What if major and minor requirements were kept to a bare minimum and students were required to take X number of classes or credits throughout their college career but basically had free license to choose to take whatever classes interested them? I argue that well-roundedness would happen more naturally and in more meaningful ways because it would evolve from choice.
Of course, I realize that this is very philosophical and hypothetical, and I know how the counter-arguments go: Where would the continuity be? What if some students took all of their classes in the same area of study? What would happen to Luther's reputation? What if some students took lots of different classes that didn't translate into any one particular major or area of study? Wouldn't Luther be cheating students out of security in the job market after college?
The bottom line is that education is a choice that all students must take responsibility for. And, it's a tug of war between freedom and structure. Luther wouldn't like the idea that it doesn't have control over the education of its students, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that it doesn't right now, and it never has!
Luther truly is a place of opportunity, and for this I am grateful. There are so many great opportunities to take advantage of at any given moment, it would be impossible to take advantage of them all even if we didn't have to go to class. This is good. But irony of this all is that, for me at least, there isn't time to take advantage of even some of these opportunities, even if I wanted to because of all that I am required to do in College. For example, I would have loved to have gone to the lecture on nutrition the other night - but because of the schedule I hold, the few precious hours I have when I get back to my apartment at night MUST be devoted to homework, or I would fail my classes. End of story.
Because this blog has already gotten ridiculously long, I will end shortly. Here's my point: I am a firm believer in the idea that humans should be well-rounded individuals and that this contributes positively to "the greater good of society," to put it in cliche terms. Personally, "well-roundedness" is something I strive for in life, and I will be the first to say that the most interesting, meaningful, worthwhile classes that I have taken at Luther have been non-music classes. But I can honestly say that this is not because Luther required me to have these experiences. In all honesty, (and I say this with no animosity, truly) the Luther College Liberal Arts Education system has done more to inhibit than support my own well-rounded pursuits in life because of the ridiculously busy schedule it has forced me to keep.
I believe that Luther College's Liberal Arts program is well-intentioned, but fails to accomplish putting its core value ("well-roundedness") into practice. We're all control freaks in some ways - its part of our nature as humans in response to an imperfect world. But times come when we need to let go. I believe that it is time for Luther and other "liberal arts" colleges to let go of the notion that extensive requirements in all subject matter will ever cause a person to become a well-rounded contributor to society; more importantly, to let go of the idea that a well-rounded person can be "created" by any other means than through personal choice. It's time to let students take responsibility for their own educational decisions in college. Of course, in doing this, they'll run the risk that students might actually learn something!
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Color = Culture?
Alright, let me preface my first Paideia 2 blog with this disclaimer: the intent behind my writing this post is not to sound like a white, ignorant, "whiner" from suburbia, but to raise discussion regarding race, cultural diversity, and their implications for us as future educators (and human beings for that matter). Here it goes....
Two words: "Color" and "Culture." It seems that most people use these words synonymously. "If someone is a different 'color' than me, they're obviously from a different 'culture' too," some might say, and vice versa. I can't help thinking that this opinion is not only untrue, but perpetuates further racial discrimination, stereotypes, and cultural misunderstanding.
Consider the first two sentences of Delpit's book, Other People's Children: "The essays in this section were written for a variety of purposes. Taken together, they reflect my beliefs about educating children of color, particularly African-American children, in what for them are often alienating environments."
How can "color" and "culture" be the same? How can the color of a woman's skin determine the culture she grew up in? While two African-American men might be "of the same color," are they necessarily from the same culture? It is so surprising to me that an intelligent, African American scholar such as Lisa Delpit would use these two terms synonymously throughout her entire book about "cultural conflict in the classroom."
Here's another example: In her chapter, "Hello Grandfather - Lessons from Alaska" Delpit depicts her learning experiences (especially regarding communication) from the culture of several Native Alaskan villages. At the end of the chapter she writes, "Unfortunately, most Native Alaskan children do not have Native Alaskan teachers, just as most children of color do not have teachers from their own culture" (104). Again, the analogy that color = culture.
A couple of sentences later, she tells a story about a boy who asks his teacher, "When are we going to die?" The teacher responds saying that no one knows when they will die. The boy responds, "Well, if we don't know when we are going to die, why do we have to go to school? Why can't we just be happy?" Delpit responds to this story: "Touched by those comments, I have carried around the question of that child for many years. Why do we have such a hard time making school such a happy place for poor children and children of color?" (104)
I don't mean to sound defensive or insensitive in saying this, but there are plenty of unhappy, white children in schools too! Perhaps Delpit is partially correct about school being an unhappy place for poor children - I would think that in general, poor children have a harder time in school. I think poverty, itself, could actually be considered a "culture," or at least part of one's culture. But attributing unhappiness in school to race alone? Does she really mean that one's color affects one's ability to flourish in school?
Delpit discusses in length the differences between two cultures, for example, cultures whose actions/facial expressions mirror their words (and who, consequently, who pay more attention to these non-verbal gestures) and cultures whose actions/facial expressions do not match their words. While Native Alaskan culture may tend to embody the first cultural example, this does not mean that all people who have "Native Alaskan" DNA (or look Native Alaskan) will have grown up with these cultural trends.
It seems ignorant, to me, to assume than any one person with a specific color of skin will be a part of any one culture on the sole basis that their skin is a particular color. I believe that the majority of the United States population (especially those who have pursued education beyond high school) values diversity and seeks to embrace different cultures (in theory, at least). Luther College certainly does. But in my opinion, "racial diversity" doesn't necessarily mean "cultural diversity" and I think this is where most of the United States gets stuck making assumptions about people's cultures based on their race, and consequently furthers discrimination (perhaps unknowingly.)
Why don't we spend more time learning about and reaching out to other cultures rather than other colors? Pre-schoolers learn colors; let's learn cultures!
Two words: "Color" and "Culture." It seems that most people use these words synonymously. "If someone is a different 'color' than me, they're obviously from a different 'culture' too," some might say, and vice versa. I can't help thinking that this opinion is not only untrue, but perpetuates further racial discrimination, stereotypes, and cultural misunderstanding.
Consider the first two sentences of Delpit's book, Other People's Children: "The essays in this section were written for a variety of purposes. Taken together, they reflect my beliefs about educating children of color, particularly African-American children, in what for them are often alienating environments."
How can "color" and "culture" be the same? How can the color of a woman's skin determine the culture she grew up in? While two African-American men might be "of the same color," are they necessarily from the same culture? It is so surprising to me that an intelligent, African American scholar such as Lisa Delpit would use these two terms synonymously throughout her entire book about "cultural conflict in the classroom."
Here's another example: In her chapter, "Hello Grandfather - Lessons from Alaska" Delpit depicts her learning experiences (especially regarding communication) from the culture of several Native Alaskan villages. At the end of the chapter she writes, "Unfortunately, most Native Alaskan children do not have Native Alaskan teachers, just as most children of color do not have teachers from their own culture" (104). Again, the analogy that color = culture.
A couple of sentences later, she tells a story about a boy who asks his teacher, "When are we going to die?" The teacher responds saying that no one knows when they will die. The boy responds, "Well, if we don't know when we are going to die, why do we have to go to school? Why can't we just be happy?" Delpit responds to this story: "Touched by those comments, I have carried around the question of that child for many years. Why do we have such a hard time making school such a happy place for poor children and children of color?" (104)
I don't mean to sound defensive or insensitive in saying this, but there are plenty of unhappy, white children in schools too! Perhaps Delpit is partially correct about school being an unhappy place for poor children - I would think that in general, poor children have a harder time in school. I think poverty, itself, could actually be considered a "culture," or at least part of one's culture. But attributing unhappiness in school to race alone? Does she really mean that one's color affects one's ability to flourish in school?
Delpit discusses in length the differences between two cultures, for example, cultures whose actions/facial expressions mirror their words (and who, consequently, who pay more attention to these non-verbal gestures) and cultures whose actions/facial expressions do not match their words. While Native Alaskan culture may tend to embody the first cultural example, this does not mean that all people who have "Native Alaskan" DNA (or look Native Alaskan) will have grown up with these cultural trends.
It seems ignorant, to me, to assume than any one person with a specific color of skin will be a part of any one culture on the sole basis that their skin is a particular color. I believe that the majority of the United States population (especially those who have pursued education beyond high school) values diversity and seeks to embrace different cultures (in theory, at least). Luther College certainly does. But in my opinion, "racial diversity" doesn't necessarily mean "cultural diversity" and I think this is where most of the United States gets stuck making assumptions about people's cultures based on their race, and consequently furthers discrimination (perhaps unknowingly.)
Why don't we spend more time learning about and reaching out to other cultures rather than other colors? Pre-schoolers learn colors; let's learn cultures!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
