And this is an advantage to the older system of education, then?
Most of the older people I know are better at math and grammar, but have a far narrower view of the world. The latter could be a cultural reflection rather than saying much in the way of our respective educations.
Younger people actually tend to read more IME and I believe readership is up, but it’s stuff like Harry Potter and Twilight. But that’s not to say that those of our grandparents who read were all reading Joyce and Faulkner.
Bottom line is, I think, the world has changed. Also at 11, fish shits in ocean.
You will forgive me if I am unimpressed with an education that either never reached most people or was of so little substance that nobody remembers any of it.
What good was all this (alleged) Greek and Latin? Assuming it happened - which I don’t for an instant believe it usually did, especially not Greek - it apparently was very poorly done, as it didn’t stick.
How much, honestly, do you actually know about education prior to 1950?
We are speaking in terms of general patterns, not specific annecdotal experience.
Keep in mind that your presidents and executives are probably in their 50s. 30 years ago, there probably was more opportunity for those without a college degree to “backdoor” into large financial companies or work their way up from the mailroom. I too work for one of the largest financial services companies in the world. We don’t even interview you unless you have a 3.5 GPA.
In all fairness, there is a running joke among the partners and managers that most of us wouldn’t get hired if we were held to our own recruiting standards.
It’s a matter of competition. Good companies want the best and brightest candidates. If you are hiring entry level 22 year olds, how do you determine that at that age? You look at what they acomplished so far - degrees, GPA, interships, participation in extraciriculars, etc. Is it fair? I don’t know. But for some reason, companies think there is a correlation between success at their companies and havning those credentials.
As far as I can tell, the only people who use significant amounts of Latin on a regular basis anymore are:
- The Pope
- High Ranking members of the Catholic Church
- Historians specialising in eras and places where Latin was commonly used
- Almost no-one else.
(I know Lawyers and Doctors use a bit of Latin but it’s generally confined to phrases which everyone in that field knows anyway)
Why would anywhere except a Seminary or a University with a strong Ancient History/Archaeological Studies programme bother teaching Latin in the modern era, in other words?
Studying Latin gives you profound insight into the world and western culture by revealing the basis for French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and about 60% of English. Those languages have had a bit of influence on history.
I agree completely with you, but school curriculae are already busy enough as it is without adding a dead (and to most of the students, useless) language to the mix as well.
Meh. I fail to see why one would need to learn latin itself to gain that knowledge. Also, 60%? Really? I have a hard time believe there is that much latin in English.
I go to a catholic university that offers latin as a language. People who take it turn into pain in the ass prescriptivists for whom nothing in English can ever be right. Don’t be one of those people.
Surely #1 is just a special case of #2? 
What seems to be pulling IQ scores up in the Flynn effect is the ability to do better in the “puzzle” type parts of the test. When separated, the Flynn effect doesn’t seem to apply to things like language and social studies and those areas of the tests. So what we’re seeing is that people who have more exposure to computer games and that type of thing do better at that type of thing.
Can I assume you’re talking about the National Spelling Bee? Was there one 60 years ago? In any case, it’s a very specialized competition that has very little to do with real life learning of language or spelling. Don’t assume those kids actually know those words to use, or that they are in any way typical of what their fellows know or learn in school.
Of course, but I thought the list would be a bit weighter if it started with The Pope. 
This is my firm belief as well, and therefore I’d have to say that no, we aren’t. (I still consider myself a kid, as it was just a few years since I got out of high school.) Learning to regurgitate text book facts doesn’t cut it for a high standard of education.
You can do this. But you can’t give the past students a current exam and see how they do on it. I wonder what would happen if you could.
Or, for that matter, if you took a random sample of all kids (not just the elites that went to the top schools) back when and gave them one of those old examinations.
One thing never goes out of style - bitching about how the good old days were so much better. I started school in 1960 and went all the way, and then some more. Todays students spend more time in school, they are expected to cover a much, much broader range of subjects and they are required to pass standardized tests (granted, not that hard) to move on yet a higher percentage of students complete HS. The schools must be doing something right. Find some old text books if you want a good laugh. I have a chem lab book that my mother used in high school (1940?) that wouldn’t meet the standard for a 6th grade class these days, even if it were still accurate and the equipment were available.
I knew a number of students who dropped out in the early 70s to work. Not uncommon at all at the time. I would have been shocked to find that one of my son’s friends dropped out.
Latin was taught in my HS - nobody took it then and nobody takes it now for a reason. It is a solid waste of time when there are actual real subjects that could be taught and learned. If Cicero has some sort of insight into HIV, nuclear disarmament, quantum physics or WWII then I’m sure there’s a college professor somewhere who can translate for the rest of us.
Or walk to the schoolhouse and home again through 10 miles of snow, going uphill both ways . . .
This sort of thing must be incredibly easy to say when you can neither read Cicero in the original nor even go to the trouble to read him in translation. I suspect that even if if some college professor somewhere did translate it for you, you wouldn’t exactly go to the effort of reading it.
And yet you would be so very wrong. I’ve read two biographies, a few of his translated works and countless fictional treatments of republican Rome. Got the Penguin Selected Politcial Speeches right here on my desk. I think I’ve done enough leg work to be allowed an opinion about Cicero and it’s my opinion that there are a lot better things a high school student could be learning than a 2000 year old text in a 2000 year old language. So what have I missed? What are the great secrets that the classics reveal only to those willing to learn the orignal language? How is a 16 year old student who can quote Cicero in the original Latin better equiped to deal with the modern world than one who studies … well, anything else really?
No.
However, most people are kinda dumb.
Curtis… Are you familiar with this modern thing called Craigslist?? Dude all you have to do is check your area and find some desperate classic’s major and/or professor willing to tutor you. Offering Latin would be nice but from what I have gathered is is that schools replaced it because a vast majority of students weren’t taking it. See… its your beloved “marketplace” and that invisible hand at work…
A good look at a slice of this issue is Nicholas Lemann’s THe Big Test. Part of the impetus for the SAT was to create 1) some sort of national standard for education 2) Give an opportunity to children not of means to acheive a higher education.
While we romantize the past let us not forget the countless negro students receiving subquality textbooks discarded by white schools. Let us not forget poor white children in the south and midwest being dimissed from school for harvest season.
How “old” are you talking about here?