Maybe my indecision after college is a good sign. I must have been multidisciplinary enough. This is also a fine argument for more service-learning in all levels of education.
Despite all that fine, stirring rhetoric, I am still left with the strong impression that one particular political bent is considered the “right” one – the underlying assumption seemed to be that everyone feels the same way politically. Is the goal to make students think for themselves even if we don’t necessarily agree with their conclusion? That is the point of liberal arts, yes?
The broadening of higher education is essential but to truly expand knowledgeable decision we must make and encourage efforts from a younger age throughout the community.
A lot of words, all HER opinions. I began to feel rather “deadened” – until, the last sentence – “You have a mind, and other people – go out and make/change your world” = now, a sense that the ‘expert’ is down-played – I want an expert to remove my appendix – teach me Zen meditation – sail me through a storm.
Buddha: The change the world you must first do a more difficult thing: you must change yourself. We (and our students) need a balance – first the discipline and depth that any area of detailed (and only detailed) study can provide, and then enable them (us) to engage them more positively with all that we do. As to the ability to contribute and better the world, artistic creation does this by its nature. Do we know of any political contributions of Shakespeare or Beethoven? Do we care? These and many others have changed the world more than Mother Theresa or FDR.
“Neutrality as academic integrity” Problematic: encourages civic laziness. Not ‘taking a side’ can leave you not impassioned about anything. FIND YOUR SPINE!
I look forward to the day when we can implement change without reducing quality. The speaker has a bias that may not fit out values, but she is a catalyst for change.
Good points: 1. Our society is too fractured, and this is taught through over specialization of the intellect. 2. We all have the ability to be “experts” 3. Obama can’t do it alone. 4. This woman is decidedly liberal… can she try to reach a little closer to the fundamentalists – there must be somewhere between the left and the right where we can meet with less criticism for the other side and its beliefs.
How do we move from inter-disciplinary education to being a fascinating ideal to making it a working reality within the confines of our vary fast-moving, specialized world here at Interlochen? I would really like to know where to begin!
One central aspect goes unaddressed: Faculty access to the conversation at Bennington, and, by extension, at Interlochen. Changes imposed from above tend to grant an absolution from trustees & the public in the immediate moment, congratulating administrators at the time. Faculty is always the most enduring constituency in any school. I think administration needs to grant the faculty time to have these conversations and look at how to improve the institution.
We, the people, are our government. We have to create the change necessary to take the power from the corporations and back to us. Education should be the starting point.
How do we become more progressive? As with Bennington, there are exciting changes happening in education…examples of institutions that feel responsibility in changing the world we live in. Where are we in the scope of these changes…left behind or moving forward?
How can we get this information to all educational institutions in the US? This information is incredible important. I will pass the link to as many educators as I possibly can.
How soon until we are moving in the direction of a more broad-based cross-disciplinary education where the quality of the arts becomes diminished? In favor of attracting students with less focused ideals in arts performance.
Does cross-disciplinary mean less quality? What about finding out where cross-disciplinary work makes sense and will enrich the experience – not everything should be interdisciplinary
Is “learned helplessness” a result of the perceived failure of partial failure of social activism movements during the ‘60’s & ‘70’s ? How do we shift students’ perception that their voices don’t matter and that a new model of effective activism is possible?
The notion of personal responsibility as echoed in President Obama’s inaugural address comes to mind when denying the superiority of the societal-deemed “expert”
Overall, I have a positive response – but she does paint with a broad brush…gender studies ought be considered “too specialized” – or gay studies, which arose from gender…too specialized?
Right – how do we broaden or redefine the “canon” without the splintering effect of “specialization”? What sort of courses would she suggest that we offer? Would they be defined by theme or time period rather than an obscure topic like “Homosexuality in 18th century Germany” (offered in my undergraduate course catalog)
What it brought me back to was the motion of what kind of adults do we want our students to be out in the world and I think considering an action oriented education is something worth considering…
Narrow-mindedness and specialization: The speaker errs in conflating those two issues, in my view. “A Politics of principle, not partnership.” Are the two mutually exclusive? Is she joking?
It seems our school is on the right track – in general – we teach an analytical approach – both with calmness and overall awareness in the academics – and we teach self discipline, perseverance, and “hands on” in the arts – maybe the next direction is how we bring this to the community and world at large and how we use it to help these serious situations.
But do we encourage TOO MUCH artistic isolation? How does one balance learning as individual craft with applying that to a vast world of varied disciplines?
Some students are conscious/interested in global issues, but others are more concerned about their “micro worlds.” I think a passion for revising the purpose of education must be felt and modeled by educators first…then students may start to care.
This presentation reminds me of the objective behind an International Bacc. (IB) curriculum. It’s what draws me – authentic, social purposes behind education. How can we use our minds/skills to positively affect society?
I feel I am already doing some of this in my teaching but there’s no acknowledgment or opportunity to link with others efforts. We are an arts school that likes its divisions too much, perhaps.
I found myself thinking – what can/should we be doing to with our program/curriculum to prepare our students for the world they will face when they leave here. Are we developing leaders who can make a difference?
As Bennington did with the restructuring of a building, let’s create curriculum/programs that emphasize the thrill of the unknown. Students should follow their passions, use their instincts, and be presented with an opportunity to engage with their work.
I needed also a printed version to draw points together better. Several ideas were obvious – action is required as opposed to sitting back and accepting “things” as they are in our society.
I would like to see Interlochen really look at the classes we offer and the limitations of the schedule. What will meaningful change look like?
ReplyDeleteMaybe my indecision after college is a good sign. I must have been multidisciplinary enough.
ReplyDeleteThis is also a fine argument for more service-learning in all levels of education.
Our new major is a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteShe challenges everyone generally. Specifically, we can be responsible for our own part. No more 200+ lectures ‘in college.’
ReplyDeleteDespite all that fine, stirring rhetoric, I am still left with the strong impression that one particular political bent is considered the “right” one – the underlying assumption seemed to be that everyone feels the same way politically. Is the goal to make students think for themselves even if we don’t necessarily agree with their conclusion? That is the point of liberal arts, yes?
ReplyDeleteThe broadening of higher education is essential but to truly expand knowledgeable decision we must make and encourage efforts from a younger age throughout the community.
ReplyDeleteAre we trying to get students into college/conservatory or are we trying to change the world? Or can we do both?
ReplyDeleteWe are educating those that can go out and change the world, so don’t we want to be thinking about that?
The rules of art ad the rules of scholarship are the same – to unlock the artistic spirit there must be foundation fundamentals and discipline.
ReplyDeleteDo Dah
ReplyDeleteDo Dah
Change for change’s sake
A lot of words, all HER opinions. I began to feel rather “deadened” – until, the last sentence – “You have a mind, and other people – go out and make/change your world” = now, a sense that the ‘expert’ is down-played – I want an expert to remove my appendix – teach me Zen meditation – sail me through a storm.
ReplyDeleteBuddha: The change the world you must first do a more difficult thing: you must change yourself. We (and our students) need a balance – first the discipline and depth that any area of detailed (and only detailed) study can provide, and then enable them (us) to engage them more positively with all that we do. As to the ability to contribute and better the world, artistic creation does this by its nature. Do we know of any political contributions of Shakespeare or Beethoven? Do we care? These and many others have changed the world more than Mother Theresa or FDR.
ReplyDelete“Neutrality as academic integrity” Problematic: encourages civic laziness. Not ‘taking a side’ can leave you not impassioned about anything. FIND YOUR SPINE!
ReplyDeleteI look forward to the day when we can implement change without reducing quality. The speaker has a bias that may not fit out values, but she is a catalyst for change.
ReplyDeleteGood points:
ReplyDelete1. Our society is too fractured, and this is taught through over specialization of the intellect.
2. We all have the ability to be “experts”
3. Obama can’t do it alone.
4. This woman is decidedly liberal… can she try to reach a little closer to the fundamentalists – there must be somewhere between the left and the right where we can meet with less criticism for the other side and its beliefs.
How do we move from inter-disciplinary education to being a fascinating ideal to making it a working reality within the confines of our vary fast-moving, specialized world here at Interlochen? I would really like to know where to begin!
ReplyDeleteOne central aspect goes unaddressed: Faculty access to the conversation at Bennington, and, by extension, at Interlochen. Changes imposed from above tend to grant an absolution from trustees & the public in the immediate moment, congratulating administrators at the time. Faculty is always the most enduring constituency in any school.
ReplyDeleteI think administration needs to grant the faculty time to have these conversations and look at how to improve the institution.
We, the people, are our government. We have to create the change necessary to take the power from the corporations and back to us. Education should be the starting point.
ReplyDeleteWith the transition from broad intellectual to specialist, we have lost both.
ReplyDeleteHow do we become more progressive? As with Bennington, there are exciting changes happening in education…examples of institutions that feel responsibility in changing the world we live in. Where are we in the scope of these changes…left behind or moving forward?
ReplyDeleteHow can we get this information to all educational institutions in the US? This information is incredible important. I will pass the link to as many educators as I possibly can.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHow soon until we are moving in the direction of a more broad-based cross-disciplinary education where the quality of the arts becomes diminished? In favor of attracting students with less focused ideals in arts performance.
ReplyDeleteDoes cross-disciplinary mean less quality? What about finding out where cross-disciplinary work makes sense and will enrich the experience – not everything should be interdisciplinary
ReplyDeleteThe conflict of “competing goods” is what we at Interlochen call turf wars.
ReplyDeleteNice to hear someone “speak out loud” in America without hiding behind false patriotism!
ReplyDeleteIs “learned helplessness” a result of the perceived failure of partial failure of social activism movements during the ‘60’s & ‘70’s ? How do we shift students’ perception that their voices don’t matter and that a new model of effective activism is possible?
ReplyDeleteIn part, parents doing everything for their kids and protecting them from everything have contributed to this. I agree. This cripples rigorous debate.
ReplyDeleteThe notion of personal responsibility as echoed in President Obama’s inaugural address comes to mind when denying the superiority of the societal-deemed “expert”
ReplyDeleteOverall, I have a positive response – but she does paint with a broad brush…gender studies ought be considered “too specialized” – or gay studies, which arose from gender…too specialized?
ReplyDeleteRight – how do we broaden or redefine the “canon” without the splintering effect of “specialization”? What sort of courses would she suggest that we offer? Would they be defined by theme or time period rather than an obscure topic like “Homosexuality in 18th century Germany” (offered in my undergraduate course catalog)
ReplyDeleteThe era(s) of political correctness have made it taboo to have fervent opinions.
ReplyDeleteWhat it brought me back to was the motion of what kind of adults do we want our students to be out in the world and I think considering an action oriented education is something worth considering…
ReplyDeleteNarrow-mindedness and specialization: The speaker errs in conflating those two issues, in my view. “A Politics of principle, not partnership.” Are the two mutually exclusive? Is she joking?
ReplyDeleteFits Revolutionary theme – what is our responsibility as scholars and artists?
ReplyDeleteIt seems our school is on the right track – in general – we teach an analytical approach – both with calmness and overall awareness in the academics – and we teach self discipline, perseverance, and “hands on” in the arts – maybe the next direction is how we bring this to the community and world at large and how we use it to help these serious situations.
ReplyDeleteBut do we encourage TOO MUCH artistic isolation? How does one balance learning as individual craft with applying that to a vast world of varied disciplines?
ReplyDeleteSome students are conscious/interested in global issues, but others are more concerned about their “micro worlds.” I think a passion for revising the purpose of education must be felt and modeled by educators first…then students may start to care.
ReplyDeleteI found this presentation to be very interesting.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is more need for reaching out to others and to interpersonal communication.
ReplyDeleteI was initially depressed – and then felt the opportunity to take a responsible role for positive action and change.
ReplyDeleteThis presentation reminds me of the objective behind an International Bacc. (IB) curriculum. It’s what draws me – authentic, social purposes behind education. How can we use our minds/skills to positively affect society?
ReplyDeleteI feel I am already doing some of this in my teaching but there’s no acknowledgment or opportunity to link with others efforts. We are an arts school that likes its divisions too much, perhaps.
ReplyDeleteI think in some ways our schedule limits the interactions between the divisions. I’d like to see that change.
ReplyDeleteA Project Zero way of thinking.
ReplyDeleteI found myself thinking – what can/should we be doing to with our program/curriculum to prepare our students for the world they will face when they leave here. Are we developing leaders who can make a difference?
ReplyDeleteI’ve really been thinking about the type of people I want our students to be.
ReplyDeleteIs the general public prepared to accept what the speaker is exposing as ideal outcomes of a liberal education?
How does the body of knowledge encountered by students today (compared to 50 years ago) influence how and what we should teach?
I’ve really been thinking about the type of people I want our students to be.
ReplyDeleteIs the general public prepared to accept what the speaker is exposing as ideal outcomes of a liberal education?
ReplyDeleteHow does the body of knowledge encountered by students today (compared to 50 years ago) influence how and what we should teach?
ReplyDelete Are we “institutionalizing” too much? We are encouraged to think and teach freely…but there are definite limits.
ReplyDeleteAs Bennington did with the restructuring of a building, let’s create curriculum/programs that emphasize the thrill of the unknown. Students should follow their passions, use their instincts, and be presented with an opportunity to engage with their work.
ReplyDeleteThis seems like a natural shift in thinking based on our current global situations – war – poverty – etc.
ReplyDeleteI needed also a printed version to draw points together better. Several ideas were obvious – action is required as opposed to sitting back and accepting “things” as they are in our society.
ReplyDeleteHow do we get everyone on a similar thought process?:
ReplyDeleteHow do we more openly embrace equity in our educational pursuits? – Or even drive towards more effective civic interaction.
Yes, Yes, Yes! This is a great program that we should explore as a model for IAA>
ReplyDelete