 |
|
Title: Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality
ISBN: 0307405389
Author:
Charles Murray
Publicate Date: 2008-08-19
Publish: 2008-08-19
List Price: $24.95
Average Customer Rating: 4.5
Format: Hardcover
 |
|
|
|
|
Amazon Lowest New Price: $14.60
Amazon Lowest Used Price: $13.47
Amazon Merchant Price: $16.47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Customer Review: |
|
1: Get to know the real Charles Murray
Murray is the author of the brilliant WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A LIBERTARIAN. Therefore, one might expect this succinct and fluid little book on education to be a critical analysis of centralized educational schemes coupled with recommendations for more privatization and healthy competition. There is a splash of this, as Murray makes his case against the backdrop of Title I and No Child Left Behind's disappointing results; but REAL EDUCATION is broad in its scope and full of pleasant surprises.
Sadly Murray has been mistreated by his critics since the publication of THE BELL CURVE. Even here I see critics whose review of REAL EDUCATION is more a tirade against demons of their own fabrication than anything Murray has actually written. Firstly, IQ is not something which Murray supports as a way to forcefully fit children to an education program suited to their IQ. Rather, IQ is intended as a means to understand why separations inevitably occur and why not all students will achieve at the same level. It is important to note that these separations are natural and to be expected. It is inherently absurd to assume that all children can be "above average." The vision of Charles Murray is of an education system which is more flexible to the needs of all students; not one which directs a child in some institutionalized way on the basis of testing. This would be an intrusion which any libertarian would find repugnant. His realism about differing intellectual abilities is not the "soft bigotry of low expectations" that some would suggest-a characterization which implies that all should desire and meet the same academic standard-but rather the realistic offering of choices to students at all ends of the intellectual continuum.
If this sounds suspiciously democratic for a man known for touting the importance of IQ and criticizing No Child Left Behind then you have probably read more of his critics than of Charles Murray himself. There is no intent-implied or otherwise-to reshape education in a way that will entrench some privileged status quo. The irony is that the bloated government educational reforms that Murray criticizes stand in stark, totalitarian contrast to the kind of flexible, multi-faceted educational system that Murray proposes.
One of four truths Murray uses to frame his argument is that too many people go to college. At first blush this would seem to be just what his critics expect, a sneering elitism that bemoans the degradation of college by those who are not worthy. Instead Murray saves his contempt for the way our culture has turned higher education into a kind of meaningless ritual, the completion of which all children should aspire to. The social devaluation of the skilled electrician or plumber, or the automobile mechanic who is honest and genuinely skilled at what he does, does a tremendous disservice to those whose capabilities are not academic in the traditional sense. Not only are these trades in demand but a person who is capable can make the sort of money usually associated with a professional degree. (Try finding a competent attorney and then try finding a competent auto mechanic. You're apt to discover that finding the former is much easier though the schooling is far more rigorous.) The cultural assumption that a person's life is lacking if he doesn't get a fluff degree by reading obtuse authors and taking `A Survey Of Modern Film' does that person-and the rest of us-a great disservice.
Again, it cannot be emphasized enough that there is no suggestion that the young person who is more capable of being an electrician than a physician should be "assigned" to his fate. Murray instead desires that we face reality and expect that some will not have the capability, or even the desire, to be academically successful. Hence we should accommodate such instances, as the alternative is to impose upon everyone a singular and unrealistic expectation of higher academic achievement; an expectation that when failed to achieve becomes not only a kind of personal failure but creates unnecessary dissatisfaction for that person upon whom such idealism is imposed. This is not fatalism so much as practical wisdom.
Another one of Murray's four truths is that America's future depends on how we educate the academically gifted. Here again one would expect the kind of sneering elitism and IQ absolutism that Murray has become wrongly known for. Here again his critics are shown to be attacking a caricature of their own creation. In fact, when Murray discusses educating the brightest among us he has in mind clearing the way to a better education not simply for those who are smart but those who are smart and have difficulty achieving to the level they should because of their geographic or economic disadvantage.
Take for example his recommendation for more certification tests like the CPA exam. Murray envisions the ivy league kid going for the same job as the community college or internet course kid; with the ivy leaguer having a relatively low score on a critical certification test while the latter has a high one. Just as an employer can assume that a person who has passed the CPA has a high competency for accounting, so to could the same kind of certification test be used to demonstrate competency in many different fields. This allows the kid with an internet education or an education from a less than stellar institution to earn a spot over his better-situated peers.
Also consider that much of what Murray has to say about educating the brightest minds is about inculcating character. Murray wishes that virtue be taken seriously again and that the "great traditions" be appreciated for their time-tested insights on the human condition. As an example he uses the ethical systems of Aristotle and Confucius. He states: "If your children grow up courageous, temperate, able to think clearly about the consequences of their actions, to be concerned with the welfare of others, with a sense of obligation to set a good example for others in their own behavior and to accord to others their rightful due, do you really care whether they were raised to be good Aristotelians or good Confucians?" The problem, Murray says, is when education teaches nothing of the great traditions. It is a compelling reminder that education should be more than jumping through hoops on the way to a job. It is also about shaping the attitudes and opinions of the nation's future leaders.
However, isn't Murray missing something when he suggests that education is not addressing the great ethical traditions? What about the pervasive morality of multi-culturalism and it's shibboleths of "tolerance" and "diversity"? Though he doesn't address this directly one may well step back and marvel at our current educational monstrosity and it's empty, manifold pretensions. In light of our present situation the idea of reviving Aristotle's cardinal virtues or Confucian philosophy seems not only practical but downright refreshing... even humble.
Again, does this sound odd for the man who is vilified as being a survival-of-the-fittest, IQ-is-destiny elitist? If so you should consider putting away the caricature of Charles Murray and get to know the real man. This book is a great start.
|
2: May seem radical in its approach, but its ideas are definitely worth considering
Education for all is one of the few things that most agree on, but to what extent? "Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality" is a call to revamping how America educates its children. Going on four principles that are bold enough to say that not everyone is going to be capable of becoming a rocket scientist or the next president, it calls for an education which is on level with the people who need it the most, America's academically gifted. "Real Education" may seem radical in its approach, but its ideas are definitely worth considering.
|
3: Thought provoking ideas about a fundamental topic
Murray provides practical insights to the challenges of education, and does it in a very straightforward, easy to read manner. There is a bit of math that some may struggle with, but overall this is a quick and very interesting read.
For me the most fascinating section was the one that seems the most obvious: half of children are below average in academic ability. Sounds really basic, right? But the author explores in some depth just what "average" means, and reminds each of us of how we define the term in our own lives.
The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book several months ago, and a week later printed 4-5 leters from readers responding to the review. Every letter was negative, taking issue with one or more points. And almost all were written by folks working in education. So I thought to myself, "There must be some interesting stuff here". :-)
In Murray's analysis traditional education is taken to task. I agree with his analysis, and believe that change is coming.
|
4: Fascinating book!
This is a fascinating book that I recommend to anyone! I am neither an educator nor a social scientist (nor, I might add, a social conservative) - just someone deeply concerned with the state of education in this country.
The book is written clearly and in an engaging style, and the information it puts forth is common-sense and logical.
Half of all people are below average in their academic ability. That's just statistics. Murray doesn't say that we should neglect the less academically-able; he doesn't say or imply that we should worship the smart and cast aside the dumb. He says we should embrace the immutable (and obvious) fact that people are different and work with it instead of struggle against it, to maximise the happiness of all. We ARE leaving children (and the future of our country) behind - because our goals are wrong.
The caveat here of course (as always) is: how to determine ability? Our tests are good (I am willing to concede that) but are they good enough? Taken to an extreme, testing to sort children could create a Socialist or even GATTACA-like system, where choices are severely limited. And what of learning-disabled children, who have issues with testing? How do they fit into this model? The book does not address learning disability at all. It does, however, stress that everyone should be free to try everything - meaning all children would be allowed to attempt harder material, which means that the "sorting" imposed by the tests would not be rigid, just general guidelines which individuals could challenge. I found this reassuring.
I applaud the changes Murray suggests in the final part of the book (although I envision a super-chaotic transition period if these measures are undertaken). Removing the "stigma" of not having a college degree is a basic and brilliant concept. Not tolerating disruption in precollege education instead of catering to the disruptors - basic again, and what a change it would make for the children who want to learn and the teachers who want to teach. How wonderful it would be if teaching became an alluring, respected profession in this country. This could happen - it SHOULD happen.
I wish that everyone in America would read this book. I know "everyone" won't, but perhaps enough "people with power" will read it (instead of just pretend they have, and BS about it in inaccurate, soundbites-with-an-agenda as they tend to do about important books). Perhaps this will be the first blow to put a crack in the bell jar of denial we have been living in.
Plus, it's a great read - really, really fun.
|
5: Charles Murray Light
This is another fantastic book by Murray though it is nothing like "The Bell Curve" or "Human Accomplishment" in the nature of statistical support. Rather, it reads like Murray light and focuses on some intriguing points. Should we do away with the false dichotomy of categorizing people as BA / non-BA when the BA does not mean what it used to? Kronman's book "Education's End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life" is referred to as dealing best with the question of what education should be all about for the elite. Perhaps with my special interest in mind a better book that Murray does not mention is Neil Postman's "The End of Education" within which Postman outlines different sorts of narratives that are the sorts of paradigms that offer answers to questions of purpose. Still, Murray's book is a great read and touches on many of his favorite points. This book will serve as a good introduction to Murray's thinking for those that would otherwise be turned off by the size of most of his other books.
|
|
|
|
|
