Keeping the Ignorant Ignorant: The Destruction of Core Curricula in American Colleges and Universities


English: The School of Athens (detail). Fresco...

English: The School of Athens (detail). Fresco, Stanza della Segnatura, Palazzi Pontifici, Vatican. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Americans are known world-wide for their ignorance of basic history, geography, and natural science. More than half of Americans totally deny biological evolution (other than perhaps microevolution). A significant number do not believe that the earth revolves around the sun. In one classroom experiment, only about 10% of students could identify the state in which they were living while in college or university on a map. Students are abysmally ignorant of the Bible, one of the major influences on Western civilization. Many cannot tell the difference between Plato and Play Dough. Despite such ignorance, there is a major push to either eliminate or to curtail core requirements in colleges and universities. Sometimes administrators lead the push, and the majority of faculty go along with radical decreases in core requirements, including requirements in the humanities, the natural sciences, and foreign languages. Why would faculty at American universities be so ignorant as to approve the destruction of a basic liberal arts education for college and university students? There are several reasons–none of them are good.

“Follow the money.” As majors in technical fields proliferate and as the hours required to fulfill such majors increase, students often spend more than four years in college. Since many students realize they cannot afford to stay more than four years, they avoid the so-called four-year degrees and go either to community college or technical school or try to get a job when they graduate from high school. In an increasingly competitive academic environment, colleges and universities seek students like mosquitoes seek blood. Students are much of the financial food for American colleges and universities, especially those without state support or without large endowments. Any policy that discourages students from attending college or staying there the full-time alloted for a degree is questioned, no matter how sensible that policy might be. Some students complain that they do not like liberal arts courses–they are difficult for students because they demand study and reading in areas in which the students are either not interested or do not believe will give them “job skills.” The fact that good communication skills and critical thinking as well as basic knowledge of the world around them is essential for jobs is lost on them. College administrators and sympathetic teachers, especially in such departments as Business and Education, support eliminating liberal arts courses to allow more hours for their major field courses without overburdening the “customers” that furnish a ready source of income for the college.

A second factor in gutting core curricula is accreditation agencies and their allies in the social sciences. accrediting agency staff, often holding weak Ed.D. degrees or degrees in the social sciences, prefer a strictly quantitative and utilitarian approach to core curricula. They push the idea of a “common core” across all degrees, which sounds good on the surface but in practice encourages a sparse core. The emphasis on outcomes-based education combined with a purely quantitative approach to evaluation is not friendly to the wisdom one can gain from a good liberal arts education, a wisdom that goes beyond the mere quantitative. Plato and Aristotle both recognized that qualitative knowledge is essential. Accrediting agencies do not deny this, of course, but they insist on quantitative measurability for qualitative criteria, a narrow approach fitting sciences such as psychology which remain stuck in a Newtonian mechanistic framework long surpassed by the natural sciences.

A third factor is the increasing role of corporate models in American institutions. Corporate models have already taken over hospitals, even non-profit hospitals, to the detriment of the fundamental ends of medicine to help sick persons in need. Business tends toward a utilitarian approach to reality in which the bottom line and “customer satisfaction” are what is most important. Considering college and university students to be “customers” is a major category mistake. If we are wanting “customer satisfaction,” why not eliminate the liberal arts all together and offer students only the courses they want to take. Those few students interested in a traditional liberal arts education can have their “consumer needs” satisfied at a college that focuses on the liberal arts. For the other customers there is a token core so college administrators and sympathetic professors can deceive themselves and pretend that their college offers a liberal arts education when it is doing no such thing.

Citizens who are woefully ignorant of history are not the kind of citizens needed in the limited democracy in the United States. Such citizens cannot place decisions of national import in historical context. They do not know enough basic economics to say anything coherent about the budget crisis. They are like the ancient barbarians who destroyed the Western Roman Empire–ignorant and uncouth, as monks struggled to keep the dregs of civilization from burning out. The saddest thing in American colleges and universities is that the barbarians–in the form of college administrators, accrediting agency staff, and many college professors–are within higher education. With the roots so rotten, the tree will inevitably die.

The Great American Sell-Out


U.S. Capitol

U.S. Capitol (Photo credit: afagen)

Both political parties are selling out the American people, and many Americans are quite happy with that. The budget deal included some tax increases, but those are not as much of a concern as a refusal to cut spending. The same massive deficit spending characteristic of the Bush 2 administration and accelerated beyond anything the country has seen under Mr. Obama will sink the children and grandchildren of Americans. The Republican Party does not have the courage to support massive spending cuts because they are more concerned with staying in power than doing the right thing.

Their fear may be justified. Americans showed that they would support someone who kept bringing in the “benefit” dollars–it is the typical attitude of most (and I mean to say “most”) contemporary Americans: “What’s in it for me?” As if that attitude is not bad enough, most Americans have the view that “I want from the government what helps me and to hell with my children and grandchildren.” Massive deficit spending cannot be sustained long-term–that is basic economics which anyone but an academic can understand. The problem is not as much political ideology as it is old fashioned selfishness. As Americans retreat into their individual worlds, the fate of their children (if they have them) becomes immaterial to their own lust for “free stuff.” Of course there is no “free stuff” that the government gives the people–that money comes from taxes. The United States sells treasury bonds to China and Japan (its main customers) which are only as good as long as the United States can pay up. So far it has, and billions of taxpayer dollars have paid the interest in the national debt. Printing more money to pay off higher deficits will only lessen the dollar’s value.

Apocalyptic books are popular these days, as is speculation about apocalyptic scenarios in real life. Although I am not one of those who store barrels of grain in my house, I understand the concern. Congress and the president will not stop massive federal spending, and when the day of reckoning comes (through China calling us on our debt, a massive loss of value of the dollar, or some other deficit-related catastrophe), it will not be pretty. The 2007 recession (which continues today despite what the mainstream media with its Obama-worship says) will look like child’s play. Now ideological liberals may think that’s a good thing since income distribution will be leveled out. To a liberal ideologue, it would not matter if the United States becomes a third world country. I do not believe most people in Congress want that, but their refusal to discipline themselves is going to damn the country to economic disaster. No money can be spent without the House of Representative’s approval. People in the House need to take their fiduciary responsibility to be good stewards seriously. Conservatives need to vote people into Congress who mean it when they call for federal spending cuts. Those in Congress who refuse to accept fiscal responsibility should be voted out.

I am doubtful that will happen–it seems that most Americans’ characters have been corrupted regarding fiscal responsibility by their own greed and selfishness, by their wanting something for nothing. The American people are being sold out, and only a few voices “crying in the wilderness” speak against the sellout. Ultimately, republics tend to disintegrate by their own hands. The hands of most Americans are wrapped around the fiscal throat of the United States, and they refuse to let go. Sadly, amputation via economic collapse may be the only way to teach them hard lessons about economic reality.

Europe’s Road Toward Economic Ruin


Relief map of Europe and surrounding regions

Relief map of Europe and surrounding regions (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

With the defeat of President Sarkosy of France by the Socialist Party candidate, Francois Hollande, France is most likely only the first of other European countries where voters will throw out governments that support austerity measures. Already German Chancellor Merkel’s Christian Democrats have lost a key local election, and popular sentiment in Greece is such that its government’s fall is just a matter of time. Europeans, like many Americans, have been spoiled by years of government benefits. Since they are used to such benefits, the idea of losing them is repugnant to the European public. Like most people, they think in terms of their short-term wants rather than the good of the whole. Government programs cost money, and raising more money to mitigate austerity measures means raising taxes. Raising taxes will result in a more sluggish economy and possibly less revenue for the government. If the current trend away from austerity continues, it appears that massive defaults by European nations are inevitable. The consequences, not only to the people of Europe, but also to the people of the world, could be devastating.

If the government treats people like children they will behave accordingly. Europeans naturally wanted an easier life after the horrors of a worldwide depression and two world wars. “The Sweet Life” with two-month paid vacations and limited hours working each week was too attractive for them to resist. As long as Europeans had a moderate to high birth rate, this system could, more or less, work, since young and productive workers continued to be added to the tax base. However, a birth rate below the population replacement value has left Europe aging, with entitlement programs draining treasuries to the point that the only choice for solvency is to borrow more. Debt piles up to the point that a country’s credit rating drops, making it harder to get good loans with reasonable interest rates. If loaning institutions lose confidence in a country over its lack of an ability to ensure a lender a return on investments, those institutions naturally would stop loaning money.

Europeans do not understand that a massive default would destroy the solvency of all the government programs and entitlements that they want. Some austerity now may allow a chance for recovery, provided that the pool of young (especially the skilled young) workers is replenished. This will most likely not be the case, as France and other European countries import foreign workers to meet their employment needs. Considerable opposition in France to such immigration and resulting damage to French culture is reasonable, but then there should be a concomitant interest in native French having more children. Given the contemporary notion that children are a burden rather than a gift, it is doubtful whether most French people will do so, even if offered government incentives. The majority of the French want to eat their cake and have it too (which is the right metaphor, by the way)–to continue to have extensive government benefits while watching what is left in the treasury melt away, only replaceable by higher and higher loans.

A massive default could lead to a worldwide Depression such as has not been seen in Europe since the 1920s (and from late 1929 onward in the United States). If other world markets collapsed, there could be a worldwide Depression that would make the post-1929 Great Depression in the U.S. look like good economic times.

The individualism and egoism of the Enlightenment is finally coming to fruition. Self-centered people will leave a world of economic ruin to those who come after them. Socialism, unlike its proponents’ claims, leads not to greater cooperation, but to greater selfishness. Such selfishness, when “fullgrown,” will leave its ruinous fruits behind if Europeans (and Americans) to not change their course.