|
What
Every Schoolboy Doesn't Know
by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D.
What every schoolboy doesn't know is that he
doesn't know very much. This is precisely what
every intelligent adult does know -- that he did
not get an education in school.
The day we leave high school or college, we feel
a natural, and pardonable sense of achievement
which deceives us. No one can tell us then how
little we know, how much we have to learn. But five
or ten years later no one need bother to tell us
that we are not educated; we have found that out
for ourselves. Life undeceives us where the
commencement orators failed. The diplomas on the
wall, be they one or many, no longer console us.
There may be a few old grads who cling to the
illusions of their graduation day, but most of us
battered and confused, know one thing well if we
know anything -- that we don't know very
much.
Socrates got the reputation of being a wise man
by going around trying to persuade people how
little they knew. There is, of course, some truth
in the ancient insight that awareness of ignorance
is the beginning of wisdom. But it is just the
beginning. We have to do something about it. And to
do something about it intelligently, we have to
know the causes and the cures. We have to know why
adults need education, and what, if anything, they
can do about it.
When he realizes how little he learned in
school, the old grad usually supposes that there
was something wrong with the school he went to or
with the way he spent his time there. However
frequently that may be he case, the fact is that
the best conceivable graduate of the best
conceivable school needs adult education as
badly as the worst. As far as genuine
education is concerned, there are no finishing
schools.
But the man or woman who makes the discovery
that his education only began in school usually
tells himself, as the sinner was told who tried to
enter Paradise, "Too late, too late -- ye cannot
enter now." And he sighs and says, "If only I could
start all over again." He spends the rest of his
life salting his wounds, wishing on what he
supposes to be impossible. But this just isn't so:
it is neither too late nor impossible. Let me
explain.
Neither the school nor the individual himself is
primarily responsible for his failure to get an
education in his youth. It is characteristic of us
adults to forget what being young was like. The man
who generously blames himself and the man who
passes the buck to his teachers have both forgotten
that the manifold distractions of youth are
insurmountable obstacles to the pursuit of
learning, as much so as all the later distractions
of business and domestic and civic
responsibilities. They are equally wrong in
supposing that those dear old golden schooldays
were a time when there was nothing they had to do
but study, or that youth is the ideal age for
devotion to intellectual pursuits.
The fact is that at the age at which boys and
girls go to school and college, they are simply too
young to get a real education. Anyone who does not
recognize this fact labors under the delusion that
education is the exclusive occupation of children
and adolescents -- that it is something which
belongs to the time of our immaturity, that it can
be done then and be done with! But the truth, I
have gradually learned as I have grown older, is
quite the contrary. Education is the business of
adults. It is a major vocation of men and women;
not a minor avocation. It is not a hobby or
pastime, a fifth wheel on the cart of education. It
is the most important phase of education when
education is considered (as it should be) the
occupation, not of childhood, but of a whole life.
In comparison, infantile and adolescent education
are at best beginnings, and they are only at their
best when they pretend to be nothing else. For,
although infants and adolescents need
education more than adults, adults deserve
it more. The full substance of education can be
acquired only in adult life, when mature men and
women, stable in character and serious in purpose,
bring varied experience and real perplexities to
the process of learning.
I say I have gradually learned this truth. I
know now how feeble was my grip on all the ideas I
pretended to possess the day I left college. No one
could have convinced me then that I was too young
really to understand one-tenth of what I could
glibly verbalize. In fact, I could not have
understood the very point I am now making -- that
youth is an insurmountable obstacle to learning. I
know this for a fact because two of the greatest
teachers I ever had, tried to make this point and I
laughed at them.
One was Plato, the other Aristotle. I read
Plato's Republic and Aristotle's
Ethics in college. In the Republic,
Plato outlines an ideal system of education. Here
is its time schedule: up until the age of twenty,
music and gymnastics, for the development of a
useful body and sharpened sensibilities; between
twenty and thirty, the 1iberal arts, especially the
mathematical disciplines, for the training of a
disciplined mind, a mind skilled in the operations
of learning and thinking; between thirty and forty,
a period devoted to the world's work, engagement in
the various activities of public life, suffering
the pains and frustrations of genuine practical
problems that have to be solved; and then finally,
at the age of forty, return to the academy to study
philosophy. Anyone who lacked all this prior
training, who had not become mature and responsible
through the ordeals of practical life, was not fit
for the contemplation of ideas -- according to
Plato.
According to Plato, but not, according to me at
the age of twenty! Was I not reading Plato and
mastering all the ideas he gave me to contemplate?
All? Obviously not even this one about education,
for with the unwarranted confidence of youth I
thought Plato's time schedule just about as silly
as some of his other utopian schemes about marriage
and property.
No one has ever accused Aristotle of being
utopian about anything. In a vague way I must have
recognized what a hardheaded realist he was, yet I
was not impressed by the fact that, in the opening
chapters of his Ethics, he says that there
is no use trying to teach moral truths to young
men. They are simply too young to understand them.
They have not had enough actual experience with
great moral problems; they have not borne the pains
of making responsible judgments in all the crises
of friendship, marriage, and parenthood, of
professional or artistic work; they have not
experienced the frustrations of vice and the
rewards of virtue. And, in addition, they are so
continually being swept off their feet, this way
and that, by currents of coltish emotion, that they
cannot listen to the voice of reason. The very
essence of immaturity is instability of character
due to emotional paroxysms. The immature,
therefore, have neither the patience nor the
experience necessary for understanding moral
problems, much less their solutions.
I mention these views of Plato and Aristotle not
merely to show how ancient is the insight that real
education belongs to the years of our maturity, but
to prove the point itself by the very fact that
this insight, like every other genuinely profound
idea, is something only an adult can really
possess. I couldn't grasp this truth, or any other,
when I was in college. And the biggest joke of all
on youth is that youth itself prevents the young
from understanding their own limitations. I now
know that my understanding of all the other ideas
which the great books contain was, at the time of
my reading them in college, just about as
superficial, wrong, or non-existent, as my
appreciation of the truth about education in the
Republic and the Ethics.
What are the implications of this basic fact
about education? There are two major implications I
should like to discuss briefly. The first concerns
the responsibilities of our schools and colleges;
the second, each adult's responsibility for his
self-education.
What should our schools and colleges be doing if
they cannot succeed in giving their charges a
complete education? The answer is not, as
some might suppose, an incomplete education.
The point is not that the schools should give a
part, if they cannot give the whole, for that is
not the proper relation between education in school
and adult education. When I said before that even
the best student at the best school could not
achieve a complete education, I did not mean that
schools could not succeed at all or in any way. The
schools can succeed, but only if they set up a
different standard of success than the one they now
espouse. By the standard I have in mind, the
schools today are a dismal failure. They do not
discharge the one educational obligation they are
capable of meeting. For, in the first place, they
are dominated by the notion that education should
serve the purpose of earning a living rather than
of being able to use and enjoy the living that all
of us must earn; and, in the second place, the
educators wrongly suppose that it is the business
of the schools to give young people the fruits of
learning when such fruits are entirely beyond the
grasp of those who haven't yet a firm foothold on
the ground or the strength to climb the tree. Let
me explain.
There are two ways in which we can view what
goes on in school. One way (the generally prevalent
view) is to suppose that the child is getting there
the knowledge which he is going to use in adult
life. This might be called the growing
burden theory of education. It presents the
picture of a little shaver with a big empty sack
slung over his shoulders. He goes the rounds from
classroom to classroom, and in each class the
teacher drops into the bag a little packet of
learning, all neatly done up in tissue and ribbons.
After a certain number of these units have
accumulated in haphazard fashion, a principal
stamps the bag quarter-filled, and the
student is graduated to another level of education,
where he repeats the same process. The packets may
now be larger and heavier, but they are still all
neatly done up, and each is dropped separately into
the bag which the student struggles to carry. In
fact, that is his major struggle -- an effort of
memory, not understanding. Again, a principal
stamps the bag, this time half-filled; and
again the process is repeated until finally the bag
is filled and sealed up tightly with a college
degree.
It might just as well be tightly sealed, for the
burden of learning the student has acquired is
entirely external -- in a bag he carries, not in
his soul transformed. The college graduate soon
realizes how useless the bag is for all its weight
upon his memory, and so, fortunately for most of
us, we drop the bag in a dark corner soon after
graduation, in order to free our memory for the use
of our mind upon problems which really engage it at
last.
The other view holds that what should go on in
school, and unfortunately seldom does, is the
acquirement of skill rather than knowledge. I call
this view the vital discipline theory of
education. It regards education not as something
which can be externally added to a person, as the
clothes he wears are added to his back, but rather
as a transformation in his very nature, a
cultivation of his mind and character. It
recognizes that children and adolescents are by
their very youth barred from the real possession of
ideas, or, to put it more truly, that the young
lack the experience, stability, and seriousness to
be possessed by ideas, to be inwardly and deeply
altered by the major insights which have enriched
human understanding. Hence, this view holds that it
is not learning, but the ability to learn which the
schools should try to transmit.
The young have a natural agility which can be
trained, We should train them, then, to climb the
tree of learning in the hope that when they are
mature they will be able to get some nourishment
from the fruits on the upper branches. If they have
developed all the skills of learning in youth,
there is some hope that they will use these skills
when maturity offers them the occasions for
learning itself. But there is little hope for
adults who lack such skills; and no hope at all
that learning can be acquired by either young or
old who sit at the bottom of the tree waiting for
the fruit to be shaken into their laps.
In short, the inward transformations which
constitute real education are of two worths: for
the young while they are at school, the development
of the skills of learning: for the mature,
throughout the rest of life, the deepening of mind
and spirit through testing actual everyday
experience by the ideas of truth and beauty. The
latter is learning itself, the fullness of
education, and it cannot be accomplished in
school.
But even if the schools realized that their
proper function was to train the young in the basic
skills of reading and listening, writing and
speaking -- for these are the skills of learning,
the arts of being taught -- the adult who was
fortunate enough to leave school or college able to
read would still have to exercise such skill in
order to become an educated man. If I am right that
only mature men and women can really understand all
the books and subject-matters which college boys
and girls play with, then it must also be true that
every adult who wants to become educated, must work
in the fields where, as a youth, he
played.
The ideal situation, of course, would be one in
which the schools did their part, and adults did
theirs. The situation as it exists today is far
from ideal. The schools do not do their part,
because they are trying to do almost everything
else. Missing the main point -- that children and
adolescents are too young to acquire the inwardness
of learning -- they either follow the
growing-burden scheme and fill his memory with a
jumble of information; or, if they are
"progressive" schools, they realize the futility of
the growing burden scheme, but then suppose that
children can be inoculated with maturity by
imitations of experience through the project
method, whereby they will discover the problems of
real life as it is lived outside the classroom. As
if anything could make a child old except years, as
if, short of age, human problems can be genuinely
understood and the ideas relevant to them become
significant! In either case, however, the schools
are devoted to a program which pays attention to
almost everything except the discipline of the mind
itself. In either case, the product of our schools
and colleges is turned out unskilled in the arts an
adult needs to carry on his own education under the
only auspices which make learning genuinely
possible -- the experiences, the stability, the
seriousness of mature life.
And most adults do not do their part, because
they wrongly suppose that an education is something
one should have got somehow in school and college.
If, for whatever reason, they did not get it there,
it is now too late to get it. But as we have seen,
the fallacy here consists in failing to see the one
reason why education could not be got in school.
When we see through that error, we also see why
adult life is the time to get the education no
young person can ever obtain. Any adult who
achieves this vision is at last on the highroad of
learning. It is not a royal road. It is steep and
rocky, but is the highroad -- in fact, the only
road. It is open to anyone who has some skill in
learning, and must be taken by anyone who has the
goal of learning in view -- understanding the
nature of things and man's place in the total
scheme.
When an adult's responsibility for his own
education is conceived in this way, it has very
little to do with all the programs of adult
education which are offered as spare-time-fillers
for whoever has time to spare from business and
pleasure. For the most part, the adult education
courses -- the lectures and forums, the dancing and
modeling classes -- which abound in every American
community, and are now being adapted for
broadcasting, are about as ineffective for adults
as the schools are for children. The same false
notions prevail. It is supposed that adults can
learn even if they have no skill in learning. It is
supposed that learning can take place without pain
and effort, that the invitation to learning, as to
the dance, must be accomplished with guile,
seductively. But worst of all it is supposed that
adults have already been well educated in the
schools and colleges and that adult education
should consist in giving them the trimmings or
hobbies or vocational assistance. Such programs of
adult education leave men and women precisely as it
found them after they finished school --
uneducated.
What do I propose in place of all this? My
proposal is simple as to plan. The plan involves
two parts. First, the adult who, because of bad or
insufficient schooling, lacks the discipline of
learning must acquire these for himself. He
acquires them the way every schoolboy acquires them
-- by habituating himself to the formal process of
asking and answering the question "Why" with
respect to every phenomenon he confronts. Second,
having the requisite skills, the adult must pursue
for the rest of his life the same curriculum of
studies which, for centuries, have been regarded as
the content of liberal education.
By the content of liberal education I mean the
basic subject-matters of history, philosophy,
science, and humane letters -- and all the great
books which constitute the tradition of our common
culture in these fields. For even if these
subject-matters were studied in college, even if
all the great books had been "read," they remain
the materials of adult education because college
boys and girls are too young to master them, If
they are worth studying in college, as a condition
of gaining skill in intellectual pursuits, they are
certainly worth studying for the rest of one's
life, not only to increase that skill, or, perhaps,
to gain it where the schools have failed, but for
the sake of transforming one's self slowly,
painfully, but rewardingly, into an educated
person.
An educated person is, after all, one who,
through the travail of his own life, has
assimilated the ideas which make him representative
of his culture, which make him a bearer of its
traditions, and which enable him to contribute to
the improvement of that culture. Clearly no college
boy or girl can be educated in this sense, any more
than can be a man or woman before the hour of
maturity has struck.
The plan, I say, is simple. Its successful
execution is something else. But it is ostrich-like
to pretend there is an easier way to become
educated. It is childish to think that getting an
education in adult life should be just as easy as
going through college, for whoever thinks this is
saying that he wants to remain forever a child. By
taking thought alone we cannot add a cubit to our
stature, nor can all the teachers and schools make
a young man wise. But if we are willing to take
thought, and make the effort to use our minds,
after the years have enlarged our capacity to grow,
then, perhaps, the cubits can be added by which we
take on spiritual weight.
When I was very young I read a poem -- you read
it, too, when you were young -- the first three
lines of which seemed silly. They seemed worse than
silly; they seemed to be a delusion concocted for
the purpose of convincing the aged and the old that
life was still worth living. I know now that it was
I -- and not the poet -- who was silly. I know now
why -- being young -- I could not understand, what
the poet meant. The poet was Robert Browning, and
the poem the immortal Rabbi Ben Ezra, and
its opening words were:
- "Grow old along with me!
- The best is yet to be,
- The last of life, for which the first was
made:"
Originally published in Pulse
Secondary Education XII, Feb-March,
1942.
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy
Magazine...
|
Academy
Showcase Specials
|
|
|
|
|
|
|