Final Thoughts: A Group Conclusion

It would be foolish to argue that our knowledge of science has not progressed since the Victorian era. It would also be foolish to argue for a system of education that ignores the natural sciences completely. What we do maintain is that science and Darwinian evolutionary theory have led to a great amount of social degeneration, we also maintain that a study of science that excludes the liberal arts leaves it students with facts, but not Knowledge—with no sense of morality.
Yet we also do not believe that the Classicists , such as Arnold and the Oxford doctors, were justified their ‘head-in –the-sand’ mentally towards modern scientific discovery. As Newman suggests, respect for Knowledge is best fostered in an education system with a comprehensive approach to all disciplines.
We contend that in today’s educational climate, student’s lack of respect for the education they receive, as well as their lack of respect for disciplines with less perceived utility is a major cause of educational degeneration.
Knowledge for it’s own sake instills a sense of value in students. This appreciation for Knowledge and the educational process is a key aspect in curbing behaviours such as cheating. A lack of this type of knowledge conversely leads to degeneration and the proliferation of academic dishonesty.
Although theorists like Newman and Doody present us with plausible solutions to both the problems of Classicism and scientism, these solutions may still be problematic in their application. We see this is the literature we have read this semester. In The Princess and Curdie, Curdie is able to change the moral fabric of his society, but this all crumbles and decays once he is no longer there. This is because Curdie is unable to make his people internalize these moral truths. In Mill on the Floss, Tom is an example of the practical failures that are not addressed in Newman’s “Idea of a University”. Some people are not capable of learning “Knowledge” for its own sake, and therefore will inevitably be drawn to facts and practical knowledge. How do we educate the Toms? If he could be taught from an early age to value true “Knowledge”, then perhaps he would gain the proper respect for the education he received, but whether this is even possible is not certain.
The other question that Mill on the Floss may raise is should we even educate boys like Tom. We take for granted that education is inherently valuable. Should we impose these values on everyone and enforce Newmanian standards on everyone even if many people could not live up to the requirements of such a system? Is it better that everyone receives a mediocre education or only offer those capable the best education possible? Perhaps Maggie should have been educated and Tom should have been left at home.

Facts versus Fiction

In her article “Is Literature Dead?”, Margaret Anne Doody presents a very compelling argument as to why literature “no longer has the charm it did even a short while ago” (1212). Literature has been pushed to the sidelines, if you will, because there is no “intuitive respect for it” (1212). This issue of respect has been previously discussed, but Doody goes on further to explain why there is this lack of inherent respect that it once held. The loss of respect for literature, despite the fact that “reading per se seems on the rise rather than on the wane” (1211), is that we are living in an age where “Information is valued far beyond thinking” which leads to “the impression that reading does not serve imagination, thought, knowledge, or wisdom” (1212).
Information being valued over thought, arguably stems from valuing a science education over an arts education. Darwinian evolution and science have taken precedent. Therefore we gauge knowledge and intelligence on knowing facts opposed to engaging with a topic and exploring with our imaginations. As Kristina “pointed out in [her] article on the decline of the book review, just because we can read, that doesn't mean we are really reading anything of substance.” A clear example of this can be seen in any number of presentations using PowerPoint today. We value three facts in concise bullet points rather than listening to someone explore and engage with a topic. Exploring and engaging with a topic leads to a fuller understanding of it for those who are learning. If we get this exploration and appreciate it, it is far more beneficial than being able to remember a handful of facts and dates. This is not to say information should not be valued: we obviously cannot live in a society in which fact and information are throw aside and replaced by scores and scores of imagination. But, instead, we must reach some balance in which both share equal value.
This emphasis on information also makes sense in the terms of the death of God. God, if nothing else, takes some imagination and thought. If God is not there, then we must look to science and facts to explain everything in this world rationally. Perhaps this is the reason, as a society, we see nothing wrong with preferring facts over thought, science over literature.

Doody, Margaret Anne "Is Literature Dead?" PLMA. v. 115 no. 5 (October 2000) : 1209-1221. JSTOR. Simon Fraser U Lib. 21 Nov. 2007

Matthew Arnold and the Disintegration of the Classics

Matthew Arnold’s essay “Discourses of America: Literature and Science” deals with the literary genius’s thoughts on the disintegration of the study literature in higher level education. Arnold held the “classical” subjects such as ancient Greek, Latin, Literature, and Poetry in the highest regard when it came to education, and felt that no person who wished to better themselves both morally and intellectually should neglect studying these topics. In his essay, Arnold expresses his concern over the fact that more and more students began choosing to study the “natural sciences” (biology especially, with the revolutionary findings of Darwin becoming known throughout the world) rather than the classics. Although Arnold does not condemn the study of natural sciences in his paper, he advises against students choosing only to educate themselves in this discipline; he feels that anyone who wishes to have a proper and fulfilling education must have a sufficient understanding of world literature as well.
Arnold defines the study of his classical subjects not only as a study of the language itself but also as an examination of the people who created the respective language. He believed that the ancient Greeks and the Romans who constructed the language of Latin deserved to be recognized for their other feats as well; Arnold feels that in reading these peoples’ literature we must take into account “Rome’s military, and political, and legal, and administrative work in the world…[the Greeks] as the founder[s] of our mathematics and physics and astronomy and biology” (491). Arnold would have looked disdainfully on our university education today; as English majors we study Shakespeare, the books of the medieval period; the poetry and epics written during the Renaissance, and the gothic and sexually-repressed novels written by the Victorians, but do we ever really study the writers? We are usually given some kind of quick biography of the person whose work we are about to study, but to be perfectly frank, most university English courses are simply too time-constrained to study both the work and the person behind it. If English courses were to cut down the amount of literary works that were to be studied each term, that could perhaps create more time to learn about the artists, but I don’t think Arnold would agree with that movement either.
Arnold states from the beginning of his paper that his experiences with the natural sciences have been “very slight and inadequate” (488), and does not ever claim that he has any superior knowledge of the subject. He therefore brings the work of Thomas Henry Huxley into his article, a brilliant scientist, in order to better illustrate his comparison between the two disciplines. Arnold in no way states in his article that the natural sciences should not be studied; he admits that “all knowledge is interesting to a wise man, and the knowledge of nature is interesting to all men” (492). What Arnold cautions against is the exclusive use of science and facts in the place of literature and religion; he maintains that art, poetry, and literature have a “fortifying, and elevating, and quickening, and suggestive power, capable of wonderfully helping us to relate the results of modern science to our need for conduct, our need for beauty” (Arnold 498). Arnold believes that the best education can and should involve the study of sciences, to a degree, but that the study of the arts ultimately helps to develop the soul. Arnold would, therefore, disapprove of the fact that only in the last decade have science students been forced to take a few writing courses in order to obtain their degree; he would view this as a shame and the ultimate degeneration of education.

"A Child is More Useful to his Family Working" - Parliament's View on Education

In examining whether or not education has degenerated in England since the Victorian and Darwinian era, one cannot escape the simple question of school attendance. A good starting place for our project, therefore, is to compare the attendance rates of primary children in the nineteenth century to those of the twenty-first in order to have some idea of just how many children were and are being exposed to an early education. I have found that children in Victorian England who received a primary education were rare, extremely fortunate, and usually belonged to the upper class, while the majority of lower and middle class children were usually taught how to efficiently clean a chimney rather than how to read or perform basic arithmetic. During the Industrial Revolution the English government actually encouraged child labor and its benefits to the economy, whereas today children who do not attend some form of primary school are few and far between. Today, primary school attendance rates are at an all-time high in England, and this fact is obviously a clue as to the importance and necessity that an education has become, as well as an indication that all children are being given the opportunity to receive an education, whatever their family’s economic status may be.
The majority of children growing up in Victorian England were not fortunate enough to have the opportunity to attend school, even in their primary years. Those belonging to the upper class usually either sent their sons to “public” school (a term for what the Americas have now deemed “private” schools) or had them taught under a mentor, usually a retired teacher or a member of the clergy. We see this example in George Eliot’s The Mill on the Floss; Tom is sent away to be taught under a clergyman, Mr. Stelling (despite the obvious fact that Tom has no real interest in learning), while Maggie, an avid reader at a very early age, is left at home. While Tom is away, Maggie begins to read great works of literature in an attempt to “keep up” with Tom, and eventually, she is sent off to school as well. Since the upper class represented less than ten percent of England’s total population (Cody), the actual number of children attending public schools in Victorian England was miniscule. It has been found that only twenty percent of the youth population in 1840 had had any schooling at all (Cody). Although there were a few fortunate families in the lower and middle classes whose children who could be home-schooled (usually in Latin, Writing, Literature and Mathematics) by their educated parents, most children belonging to the lower classes in Victorian England were pushed into the labor force in order to earn extra money for their families.
The most common jobs given to children working in Victorian England included servants to the upper class, factory-workers, miners, or chimney-sweepers, and because they were seen as “energetic” and “nimble-bodied”, many were forced to work eight to ten hour days for very little money (Atlick 167). In Charles Kinsley’s Water-Babies we are given an example of such an existence; after losing his parents at a young age Tom is forced to become a chimney-sweeper in order to survive. His abusive master, Mr. Grimes, has no has no intention of helping Tom amount to anything more than a chimney-sweeper, either; there isn’t one allusion to education in the entire novel. Tom is a classic example of the way that children in the lower classes were looked upon in the Victorian period and through the Industrial Revolution, a time when factory production became the most crucial aspect of England’s economy. The English Parliament itself even stated in 1854 that child labor was essential to the economy, and that a child was “more useful to his family working” (Atlick 249), than getting an education. This is one aspect of education that has most definitely progressed since the Victorian era.
Attendance figures from the last school year in England revealed an overall increase in the number of children attending school on a regular basis. In the autumn school term of 2006, the attendance rate of primary schools in England was over ninety-three percent. This figure translated means that between September 2006 – June 2007, out of all the possible school days attended by every single child registered in elementary schools in England, only 8.79 percent of these days were missed. When considering only the days missed with inexcusable absence, just over one percent of days were missed. This figure is an undeniable fact that children in England are getting a primary education, and that parents and schools are working hard at having them attend and learn. This is most definitely one aspect of education that the English at present day have the Victorians beat; our children are going to school.

Educating Tom

“‘I can’t think why anybody should learn Latin,’ said Tom. ‘It’s no good.’
‘It’s part of the education of a gentleman,’ said Philip. ‘All gentlemen learn the same things.’” (Eliot 172)

In George Eliot’s Mill on the Floss, Eliot presents two very different male students: “well-made and active-looking” (171) Tom and Philip. Tom does not excel under Mr. Stelling’s curriculum. As Kristina has brought up, it could be argued simply “has neither the intelligence nor the will for study of ‘Knowledge’” and thus is not made for Latin and drawing. However, this does not allow for a world in which Tom perseveres and achieves the fullest of his potential. Tom’s problem is that he begins his studies without any respect for “the education of a gentleman” (172) for which he is being prepared.

Tom does not care or respect the education he is receiving. This lack of respect for Latin, for example, leads him to believe “it’s no good”. Had he fully immersed himself in the language and works, Tom could then form his opinion of the uselessness of learning Latin. For he clearly regards this education as a trial he must endure while “you’re obliged to remember it” (172) and then promptly rid himself of this superfluous Eton Grammar. There is no enjoyment in Tom and Mr. Stellings give and take of teaching and learning. This lack of both enjoyment and respect is one of the problems at the core of the degeneracy of education. Conversely, Philip is clearly excited by the stories of the Greeks and, for this reason, he voraciously holds onto the stories with fondness.

For this problem of learning to respect education, we must then be wary of attempts to change the education system. Are these new requirements of SFU’s simply band-aids covering a deeper problem? Education may have degenerated, but is this an unfortunate by-product of a degenerate youth who, like Tom, dislike reading and would prefer to get the gist from Wikipedia?

Then to answer Kristina’s question, posed in her article “The Wrench in Newman’s Solution: What about the Toms?”, it seems the best way to educate the Toms of the world is start out by teaching and understanding why an education is important and should be valued. For with respect can come love and understanding. This simple answer - respect - is incredibly difficult insofar as putting it in practical use, but, if we could figure it out, even the Toms of the world may have a good chance.

Eliot, George. The Mill on the Floss. 1880. Toronto: Penguin Books, 2003.

The wrench in Newman's solution: What about the Toms?

The wrench in Newman’s solution: What about the Toms?

The best example of the potential problem I proposed at the end of my last post on Newman’s “Idea of a University” has to be Tom in George Eliot’s “Mill on the Floss”, who has neither the intelligence nor the will for study of “Knowledge”:
“It is doubtless almost incredible to instructed minds of the present day that a boy of twelve, not belonging strictly to ‘the masses’ who are now understood to have the monopoly on mental darkness, should have had no distinct idea how there came to be such a thing as Latin on this earth: yet so it was with Tom”(Eliot, 148).
“Tom had actually come to the dim understanding of the fact that there had actually been people on earth who where so fortunate as to know Latin without learning it through the medium of Eton Grammar”(Eliot, 159).
And once Philip arrives, we see that there might be two levels of comprehension attainable to students:
“Tom was hanging over his Latin grammar, moving his lips inaudibly like a strict but impatient Catholic repeating his tale of paternosters, and Philip at the other end of the room, was busy with two volumes, with a look of contented diligence that excited Maggie’s curiosity: he did not look as if he where learning lessons.”(Eliot, 187).
Here we see the harsh reality that face education—all students are not created equal, and while the Philips of the world may aspire to Newman’s intellectual ‘fastidiousness’, to his “delicacy” or “daintiness”, the Toms cannot (Newman, 219).
What Mary Anne Evans also shows us, through the sensibilities and intellectual abilities of Maggie is that, it is not just how we study, but who we are that affects our ability to gain a sense of morality from the study of ‘Knowledge’. Both Maggie and Tom are from the same family, yet they cannot achieve the same intellectual abilities.
So in the end, although Newman’s “Idea of a University” may provide a solution to the death of God and the proliferation of scientism to a select few, it is not a solution for everyone. It may prevent the Moral degeneration of student’s like Philip, but student’s like Tom will struggle and fail in the attempts to study Knowledge for its own sake. They will naturally be drawn to the applied science—to those things that are practical and that will allow them to gain “wealth or power or honour or the conveniences and comforts of life”, and while Newman claims he does not profess to know what the worth of Knowledge is in relation to these things, even he would admit that they are the very things that those incapable of “Knowledge” will naturally seek out. If the Toms of the world are not able to acquire the “learning for learning’s sake” that will fortify their morality in the wake of the death of God, then how can they avoid ethical degeneration?

How do we educate the Toms?

John Henry Newman: Does He have it all figured out?

John Henry Newman:
Does He have it all figured out?

Like many of the works we have read, John Henry Newman’s “Idea of a University” mirrors the concerns expressed in our thesis regarding the proliferation of scientism in education; however, it is possibly the only work that expresses a solution to this problem that can be carried through to our current age. Unlike staunch Classicists, like Matthew Arnold, he recognizes the error in suppressing or ignoring science. He sees the University as a place where “all branches of knowledge are connected together”, where “they compete, correct, balance each other”(179). He also addresses the inherent error Classicists make when they rely to much upon the instructive power of these ancient texts: “Thus the Classics, which in England are the means of refining taste, have in France subserved the spread of revolutionary and deistical doctrines” (180). [Note how he masterfully dismantles the Classicists’ argument by highlighting the failings of French, an almost infallible rhetorical move when addressing an English audience].

Clearly Newman’s idea of a “whole circle” approach to knowledge comes closest to what we have proposed as the only solution for combating scientism, yet there are those who would argue that in defining true ‘Knowledge’ as something which must be divorced from utility, Newman’s model University has not truly addressed all the science. The fact that contemporary Universities have faculties whose names begin with the word ‘applied’, such as the Applied Science Faculty, is a testament to the academic community’s desire to resist Newman’s theory of a University where “Knowledge is capable of being its own end”(181).

However, as we have shown through several tangible examples from both the Victorian Age and the Twenty First Century, there is a moral degeneration occurring in universities that can arguably be linked to the proliferation of scientism. And although Newman’s theory may seem to fall short of balance between sciences that it seeks to achieve; yet, when examined in a moral context, the limitations he imposes may be necessary in order to foster the type of morality that has slowly evaporated from the consciences of students for the last 150 years. This is may be especially true if we consider not only Darwinism and the proliferation of scientism, but also consequent ‘death of God’ as the cause of this moral degradation in education.

In a world where God is dead, it becomes increasingly hard to foster morality among people through religious doctrine and faith. Therefore, if we can no longer rely on the church to maintain our moral centres, we must inevitably look elsewhere. Newman believes that the solution is the study of ‘knowledge for its own end’. He feels that it is a ‘Liberal’ education that will lead to the creation of the best kinds of individuals:
“Hence it is that his education is called “Liberal”. A habit of mind is formed which lasts through life, of which the attributes are freedom, equitableness, calmness, moderation, and wisdom […]”(181).
As he addresses in his section, “Knowledge and Religion”, the study of this pure ‘Knowledge’ is actually capable of the forming not only the minds, but also the souls of its students:
“Knowledge, the discipline by which it is gained and the tastes by which it forms, have a natural tendency to refine the mind, and to give it an indisposition, simply natural, yet real, nay, more than this, a disgust and abhorrence, towards excesses and enormities of evil, which are often or ordinarily reached at length by those who are not careful from the first to set themselves against what is vicious and criminal.”(218)
I believe that the type of morality that Newman is talking about would not be achievable in the applied study of knowledge. As proof, I would put forward the study of law against the study of English. In the case of rhetoric, lawyers are taught nothing beyond the Aristotelian triangle. They are taught how to argue convincingly, but often not why, or whether they should argue some point. In today’s law schools, as in Victorian times, the purpose of a legal education is to acquire knowledge that will allow you to become gainfully employed. In English Faculties, the study of rhetoric has moved well beyond the simple notions of argumentation put forward by Classical philosophers and has become something that allows us to question the nature, and often the moral implications, of our communications with others.
As Newman attests, this type of ‘Knowledge’ “generates within the mind a fastidiousness analogous to the delicacy or daintiness which good nurture or a sickly habit induces in respect of food; and this fastidiousness, though arguing no high principle, though no protection in the case of violent temptation, nor sure in its operation, yet will often or generally be lively enough to create an absolute loathing of certain offences, or a detestation and scorn of them as ungentelmanlike, to which ruder natures, nay, such have far more real religion in them, are tempted or even betrayed”(218-219).

Although carefully worded, the passage represents the solution to both the problem of scientism and the death of God. Although it argues “no higher principle”, it does instill “fastidiousness” in the minds of its pupils; therefore if a ‘higher principle’, or God, is no longer attainable, then surely the study of this pure Knowledge is the only way to ensure the moral fortitude, or ‘gentlemanliness’, of our students.

I think Newman’s solution is one of the most promising we have looked at today. In it, I see only one problem. What of those who do not inherently posses the sensibility for such studies? How are they to be educated? How is their moral character to be formed?

Science Education Became a High Priority

"Where the classical tradition had been lost it was not easy to recovery, especially as the classics had now to contend not only with the ordinary parent anxious for a useful education for his son, but with a government uneasily conscious of Britain's weakness in scientific and technical education and willing to provide financial aid for this purpose, but with no desire to subsidize or even encourage the classics" (Clarke 97).

The above quote, taken from a chapter discussing schools in the 19th century, immediately brought to mind The Mill on the Floss. In this novel we find Mr. Tulliver, who could be considered an ordinary parent, wants Tom to obtain an education that would render him a scholar rather than a farmer. In fact Mr. Tulliver speaks of perhaps Tom becoming a "sort o'engineer" (11) among possibly other things. Eliot displays here the Victorian move toward the desire for more than a classical education, where science becomes of great significance to the Victorians. In fact over time scientific education became a priority in the educational system of Britain rendering other subjects less important. In thinking about this it is also interesting to consider as society's move towards science progressed, morals and society in general degenerated. In the rest of this post I am going to discuss some interesting facts that I found to support our claim that scientific education gained priority over liberal arts.

In 1869 the Endowed School Act was passed in Britain and this act gave schools the freedom to modify their curricula, which in turn allowed them to respond to the new demands for scientific subjects (Baron 50). A demand for scientific subjects prior to the 19th century was generally unheard of. Undoubtedly Darwin had played a large role in this move toward science. This was just the beginning of the changes in education. The Education Act of 1902 gave the local authorities responsibility for aiding voluntary schools which were starting to draw support for technical schools (Barton 53). Science and technical schools were peaking the interests of society which was drawing away from classical education. An even more interesting event that showed science's move toward becoming a priority in education was in 1963 when the "Ministry of Education" became the "Department of Education and Science". A significant sign that "shows pronounced concern with science and the close links between higher education and institutions for scientific research" (Baron 67).

Of great interest to me was when Baron spoke of the rise in delinquency between 1946 and 1956, a fivefold rise in youthful drunkeness, threefold increase in violent crimes and double the number of convictions of 17-20 year olds for sexual offences and disorderly conduct (37-38). He did not mention that there was a clear answer as to why there was a rise however, this was brought up while he was speaking of moral guidance in schools. Perhaps the push for more science could explain why moral guidance was lacking. More science would have meant less time for religion and literature, which meant less time for moral education. Is it far fetched to think that social degeneracy is a result of the move toward science? In fact I do not think that it is a coincidence that after Darwin, science took priority in education and since then we have seen the degeneration of society. Sure we have progressed in the sense that we are more advanced in our daily lives and the way things function however morally we have degenerated. This trend of degeneration only gets worse as technology and science advances. It seems the youth of today lack many morals that only one generation ago was present. Technology is a gateway to cheating (as previously discussed by Nathan) and easy access to socially degenerate material.

On a closing note I would like to quote Baron, "How to achieve progress, with out loss of identity and continuity, is perhaps the fundamental problem of the technological age" (15).

Works Cited:

Baron, G. Society, Schools & Progress in England. London: Pergamon Press, 1965.

Clarke, M.L. Classical Education in Britain 1500-1900. London: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

Eliot, George. The Mill on the Floss. 1880. Toronto: Penguin Books, 2003.

Curdie taught Morality but is it realistic to ignore Science?

"Evil teachers, unknown to him, had crept into the schools; there was a general decay of truth and right principles at least in the city; and as that set the example to the nation, it must spread." (MacDonald, 178)

This quote taken from The Princess and Curdie by MacDonald shows a strong reaction to the move away from the teaching of morality and the move into science during the Victorian era. The "evil teachers" can be interpreted as being those who were teaching science and pushing back the importance of teaching morals. This move toward science and away from morals was bringing society down, it was encouraging degeneracy. Although MacDonals's reaction initially makes me want to agree whole heartedly and back it up with the moral point of his tale, where Curdie punishes the kingdom for their immoral behaviour, I can not. Morals should be an important part of an education, as well as, a society however, it can not be the only important aspect. Possessing only good morals and completely ignoring science as MacDonald would have us do, is impossible.

Perhaps during the Victorian period it would have been easier to achieve such a goal as ignoring science and focusing on morals but since Darwin and improvements and advancement of science this would be unachievable. Through the 20th and 21st century science and technology has been thriving, making it near impossible to function without some form of them. I doubt a company in this day and age would hire an individual based on their superior morals, who could not operate some form of machinery or technology. Please do not misunderstand, this post is not to advocate for science, as we are attempting to prove since the shift away from liberal arts to science society has degenerated, it is merely to point out that science can not be ignored.

Work Cited: MacDonald, George. The Princess and Curdie. 1882. Toronto: Penguin Group, 1994.

A Modest/Indecent Proposal

The subjectivity of Literature is one area where those of a scientific predisposition often choose to attack. A common argument is that Literature is all up to the individual to deciepher and further that over time what is considered the best of literature changes dramatically. In this way literature is viewed as an indeterminate study.
Did anyone read the Georgia Straight this week? There was an article about Darwin.

"Although Darwin could show that evolution by natural selection must be the answer, he couldn't present evidence for that answer in even a single case of evolution by natural selection, observed and documented in the "natural" world. No one, least of all Darwin, had ever seen it actually happen." (Glavin)

The article goes on to show a case study of evolution effected by natural selection in the finches of the Galapagos. Peter and Rosemary Grant show over a course of decades that the beak size and shape of these finches changes to suit thier changing environment. So, bully. A case of evolution. But isn't there a bigger picture here? No evidence for how many years? With how large a body of research subjects?

I have three reactions to this and the point of this post is to determine a reaction inkeeping with our thesis.

1) Evolution has been based on the purely theoretical for so long that those who follow it have no place to criticize the study of Literature.

2) While evolution's huge time scale serves only to hinder its validity, it seems that Literature's vast body of works only makes it all the more useful.

3) Both evolution and Literature are simply a way of associating with a certain period. ie. Waterbabies as a way of fictionalizing the horrible rate of child death in Victorian England and the Peppered Moths turning black to match the soot of the industiral recolution.

Please remember that this is only a rebutle against a possible attack on Literature by the sciences. This was really inspired by the part in Waterbabies about half way through chapter 2 when the narrator is justifying fairies.

source: Galvin, T. "Finches Provide the Proof." Georgia Straight, November 15-22, 2007.

O Morality, Morality! Wherefore art thou Morality?

Back in the 90's "prayer in schools" was a topic that sparked fierce debate. It was, and in many circles still is, seen as religious intolerance. By the institutions of academia supporting a Christian God, all the Other students will be outsiders. I don't intend to argue this point but merely to show that, what for centuries, in many different cultures has served as a moral anchor is now not being embraced institutionally. Religion teaches morality, and true, people can still teach their children about Jesus or Mohammad at home but shouldn't morality be reinforced in education?

Biology. Evolution. Charles Darwin. Sure, having a knowledge about scientific facts and theorems is of value in a formal education but what moral lesson can be gleaned from this? Darwin, in "On the Origin of Species" uses phrases like, "beaten in the race for life”,"Struggle for Existence," and "war of nature." There is no morality in Darwin. There is only the lesson that the weak perish and the strong thrive. Modern society is far too intricate to be broken down in such terms. Prisons exist to stop the Alpha Males from dominating by force. Those with the natural gifts don't necessarily succeed as Darwin says happens in Nature. In "Descent of Man" Darwin attributes success of men and societies by their possession of some poorly defined morality. Darwin said that members of a tribe would "approve of conduct which appeared to them to be for the general good, and would reprobate that which appeared evil." How can this be reconciled with evolution? Is "general good" to be taken to mean good for the tribe? If so, then it would often appear evil to other tribes. Darwin is trying to set up a moral code here but it completely falls apart because morals can't exist in terms of instinct or survival. Morals arise out of choice.

So, if Evolution and prayer cannot be turned to for morality in schools, then where? How about the "L" word? LITERATURE. Poe, Blake, Twain...Shakespeare even. It seems as if the last politically acceptable source of morality in schools is classic literature.

Source: Darwin, Charles. Handout with selections from On the Origin of Species: by Means of Natural Selection (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871).

Question: Is religion in public education unsaveable? Is Evolution morally bankrupt? Where else can we turn but Literature?

Combining Art and Science

Through the College Teaching Journal I came across a very interesting article called "Combining Art and Science in "Arts and Sciences" Education." This article is about a project that was done by an Art Professor and a Biology Professor bringing together both science and art students at Wagner College in Staten Island. The project involved scientific research that used digital imaging of the brain of a Zebrafish. This project was an opportunity to combine disciplines to do research but to also allow arts students and science students to come into contact with disciplines that they would normally not be involved with.

The Professors involved believe that with the rapidly changing information in the world a liberal arts education is becoming more and more important. Andrew Needle et. al. point out that, "The modern professional needs a broad knowledge base and grounding in other cultures' history, political structure, and arts. These cultural references allow one to effectively navigate different social environments while understanding cultural subtleties" (114). It is safe to say that not too many science students have the opportunity to learn this type of knowledge if they are solely exposed to science courses. Perhaps this is one of the main reasons that SFU moved towards the WQB requirements, in hopes of producing higher quality professionals.

This project gave the art students had the opportunity to work in a scientific laboratory while the science students had a chance to explore their artistic skills. According to the professors involved by the end of the project this lead to many students considering incorporating some form of the opposite discipline into their studies. This is a successful initiative in the move towards having students acquire a more broad knowldge in order to be successful in the world. It allowed the students to become more creative and versatile. Which is important to many disciplines of work whether they are at a scientific level or an arts level. I believe that this project displays the necessity, reward and importance to producing an education that is equally balanced in the science and the arts, as opposed to focusing only on one disipline. The authors of the article so beautifuly put it when speaking of their project and how it "broke down academic barriers in different disciplines and (the students) learned social skills specific to their future professions" (119). Skills that deveopled because of their interdisciplinary experience.

Do you think that all universities should take initiative and implement some type of course that allows science and art disciplines to come together in one course? Would you register in a course like that?

Works Cited:

Needle, A., et. al. "Combining Art and Science in "Arts and Sciences" Education." College Teaching. v. 55 no. 3 (Summer 2007) : 114-119. Wilson Web. Simon Fraser U Lib. 5 Nov. 2007

Science vs. The Gentleman in Victorian Medical Schools

Degeneration in Education is not a new, or post-modern, fear. It is something the Victorians' felt keenly. Not only did they recognize this potential issue, but they saw the increasing 'scientism' that Darwin and his supporters presented as a threat to their most hallowed educational institutions. Case in point was Oxford's Medical School. In his article entitled, Gentlemanly versus Scientific Ideals: John Burdon Sanderson, Medical Education, and the Failure of the Oxford School of Physiology, Terrie M. Romano details "the lack of support for a move to a science-based medical curriculum in late-Victorian Britain, despite the many efforts during this era to reform medical education along these lines" (226).
In it, he details why a school of "physiology" was not established in the Victorian era, despite many efforts by some at the school. He boils down the problem to a specific tension: "The failure of the Oxford physiology program was due in part to the support of gentlemanly over scientific ideals"(227).

Romano claims that it is an issue of class, that the "classical education" was a mark of the Oxford doctor's gentlemanliness, and that they believed it should still remain at the foundation of their program (227).

The problem with the attitude of the Oxford Doctors, as well as most Victorian Classicists like Matthew Arnold and Walter Patter, is that their views are so viscerally reactionary. They are Victorians, and so it comes as no surprise that they insist upon arguing their points in a violently polemical manner. Yet, denying science is as ridiculous as worshiping it, and as dangerous. While I maintain that our thesis about the importance of arts based education in the prevailing culture of scientism is correct, I cannot say that I agree wholeheartedly with these Classicists. Suppression and ignorance never solves anything.

Take for example this blog. While some might point out the potential hypocrisy of using this "technological" format to present our thesis, I believe that it is an example of overcoming the some of the problems that lead to the downfall of the Victorian Classical view of education. The arts-based education model did not survive because what it was presenting was dead. A Classical education is fine, but if it does not directly engage with the present, then it is of no use. In order to combat the degeneration of 'scentism', those of letters must discuss these issues that are unavoidable in a post-Darwinian world.

Source: http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/journals/bulletin_of_the_history_of_medicine/v071/71.2romano.html

Questions:
Do you think doctors today would benefit, not from a return to the Victorian Oxford curriculum, but from an increased amount of arts-based education in addition to what they already do?

Would Pater or Arnold see the ridiculousness in a medical degree heavily based on a Classical education?

The Decline of the Book Review: A Harbinger of Complete Degeneration

Through the Arts and Letters Daily site, I came upon the following article on the decline of Literary Journalism in American Newspapers here. The cover story of the Fall 2007 issue of the Colombia Journalism review entitled, Goodbye to All That, by Steve Wasserman discusses the steady decline in both the print media coverage of literature, as well as the general decline in literacy and 'book reading' over the past century. If the Victorians were such voracious readers, then how did their grandchildren and every subsequent generation become such literary degenerates?

I thought this article had several salient points, as they pertain to our thesis.

First, I think it expresses the opposing view perfectly:

"Others, equally passionate, dismiss these concerns as exaggerations, the overblown reaction of latter-day Luddites vainly resisting the new world order now upon us. They foresee—indeed, welcome—an inevitable if difficult adaptation and seek to free themselves of the nostalgia for a past that never was."

It also expresses the consequences of this attitude, and the degenerative danger that a technologically/science driven culture poses on our ability to learn, (and subsequently our educational system)

"The most troubling crisis is the sea change in the culture of literacy itself, the degree to which our overwhelmingly fast and visually furious culture renders serious reading increasingly irrelevant, hollowing out the habits of attention indispensable for absorbing long-form narrative and the following of sustained argument."

However, the most pointed argument Mr. Wasserman makes comes at the end of the article:

"I shall never forget overhearing some years ago, on the morning of the first day of the annual Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, a woman asking a UCLA police officer if he expected trouble. He looked at her with surprise and said, “Ma’am, books are like Kryptonite to gangs.” There was more wisdom in that cop’s remark than in a thousand academic monographs on reforming the criminal justice system. What he knew, of course, is what all societies since time immemorial have known: If you want to reduce crime, teach your children to read. Civilization is built on a foundation of books."

There you have it. If we want to ebb the flow of our educational degeneration, we have have to make a concerted effort to increase our collective love of books. However, as Wasserman points out, being a critical reader is not easy-- "Acquiring the knowledge and technique to do it well is arduous". And if this is true, then the best time to instill this knowledge is in childhood. In this age of science and technology, the only way the arts and 'the book' are ever to have a fighting chance is if we hammer the importance of reading literature at every level of the education process.

Cheating At SFU Surrey

Hi guys,
I have a friend who went to SFU Surrey for the Tech One program. The Tech One program is an introduction to computers in general. It covers programming, math, digital media, communication in a text based medium and more. While enrolled in this, my friend found it very easy to cheat on much of her school work. The following is a first-person account written from my notes on my interview with her.

I'm not a cheater. I don't believe in it. I've always found that I can do my own work better than other people can and I actually like doing it. That was true before I went to SFU Surrey. There, everyone cheated. It was never cheating on anything major...well maybe a couple of things.
It started with this test we were forced to take every week for our "English" class. We were to go online and take this 10 question test. The thing was you were allowed to retake the test as many times as you wanted until you got them all right. What we would all do was sit around in a computer lab and make an answer key to this test and email it around to everyone in class. It was an effort to actually make it but it helped a lot of people and I was always gratefull when I got emailed it so writing it every now and then didn't bother me.
The next instance of cheating I was involved in was in my programming class. In this class we had two lectures and then, every week we had a practical test where we had to show a TA that we could do what was discussed in lecture. In the practical test, we were in a computer lab with 30 other people and the computers had the internet. What happened was we'd email around the correct code then simply copy and paste it from our hotmail into python. To avoid detection we would ctrl+C then close hotmail so our TA wouldn't get suspicious then look to be struggling away for a few minutes, then when he was on the other side of the room just ctrl+V and say, "Ok, I think I got it."
My final personal example was for the same class, the programming one. I hadn't been doing anything all semester because it was so easy to just cheat so by the time the final rolled around I was in big trouble. The task was to create a program in Python that would make a madlib. I understood the concept, make a program that can import a text doc, read it for an indicator, show the user a message and replace the space with the user's input, but I hadn't the faintest idea about how to go about doing that. In a final act of desperation I actually paid a friend to do it for me. This was my least proud moment as a student.
The last case of cheating that I want to discuss happenend in my digital media class. This time, I was not the perpetrator. Our assignment was to make a video that synced well with music. My group finished on time and handed our project in. When it came time to watch the other group's work, one group stood out among the rest. Not for its quality but for its blatant falsness. Their movie was about a what looks like a drug deal but in the brief case is a mens dress shirt. It was someones project where the assignment was to make an ad for something. The thing that stood out was that not one of the group appeard anywhere in the video. There were 8 people in the movie all together and not one of them was a person from the group. Everyone in the class, prof included, was too polite to just come out and say, "Bullshit!" Because it was just a video file on the disc it is impossible to trace but it didn't even have original credits. It seemed so obvious that they had just roughly taken this from somewhere else and showed it in class. But video can't be traced for plagirism like written work can and they got away with it.
Don't judge me. I'm doing that enough. I've never cheated since then and don't plan to but it was just so easy.

Ok, degeneracy in education facilitated by technology. It is clear that she learned very little while there because technology made it possible for her to cheat. Technology is then depriving this person of the education that they are paying for. If learning is not taking place can it still be said to be education?

Project Proposal

English 330 Group Project Proposal
Group Members: Kristina Larson, Nathan Bertrand, Molly Sotham, Jessica Cole and Hilary Snodden.

In 2006, Simon Fraser University instituted the “Writing, Quantitative, and Breadth” requirements for all undergraduate students. The most interesting of these requirements are those that oblige undergrads to take a course designated ‘writing intensive’ at both the upper and lower level. Why was this change instituted? Why did the University feel it needed to take a more active role in policing the writing skills of its students? We believe that this is an acknowledgement on the part of our administration of the academic degeneration that has permeated our society, a degeneration that became accelerate after the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species. By engaging issues of academic degeneration in both contemporary and Victorian times, our group polemical project will take the form of a blog, which can be found at: prasisebetodarwin.blogspot.com. We intend to discuss the topic of degeneration in education, and through individual posts and group discussion, we will try and prove the following thesis:
Since Darwin, society has degenerated due to the scientism of education in contemporary times, which is largely due to the inability of the traditional ‘classical education’ to adequately confront Darwin and science in the Victorian era.
So far, we have established that Mill on the Floss and Princess and Curdie, are fictional works that touch upon our thesis. We will also engage with the Matthew Arnold essays in Prose of the Victorian Era, as they along with George Elliot’s fiction, provide proof of the later half of our thesis in regards to the ‘classical’ Victorian education.
Potential lines of argument and topics of discussion include:

1. Prove through current and historical examples and journal articles that education has degenerated in both England and North America as Darwinian theories of evolution became more and more acceptable. Focusing on the increase in cheating and the degeneration of literary and communicative skills. We will also look at this issue as it pertains to Simon Fraser University, and the new “writing” requirements.

2. Prove that as scientific education gained priority, liberal arts education was ignored, and this has lead to the degeneration of society. We will try and make arguments that technology, especially technology and youth, lead to educational and social degeneration.

3. Illustrate that the Victorian’s recognized this eventuality, and resisted scientificism in education. However, we will also discuss that their immediate response of ‘clinging’ to a classical education was reactionary and counter productive. In essence, we will discuss why science cannot realistically be ignored. Examples would be Matthew Arnold’s essays, the notion of ‘bad teachers’ in Princess and Curdie, Thomas Arnold’s Public/Rugby School ideals, and Oxford University’s reluctance to form a medical school of physiology.

4. We will also look at the theme of education in Mill on the Floss as it pertains to Tom and his teachers, Mr. Tulliver and Mr. Riley, Philip Wakem, and Maggie. Potentially reading the novel as a response to both the increasing pervasiveness of science, as well as an argument against Arnold and other reactionary classicists.