« AnteriorContinuar »
3. What is its bearing on education ?
7. State clearly the three fallacies of which he is the sponsor and show clearly that they are fallacies.
1. Do you think there is any difference between will and desire, and, if so, why?
2. What is the difference between a physiological and a psychological machine ?
3. What sort of laws would govern the movements of the former, and what the movements of the latter?
4. The Herbartians maintain that it makes no difference whether we believe that our pupils have wills or not: do you agree with them, and, if not, why not?
5. Show that a boy may develop into any one of an indefinite number of selves.
6. Show that all of the impulses of a human being are equally a part of his actual self.
7. Show that some of these impulses are antagonistic to education.
8. Show by illustrations drawn from your own experience that it is possible to have interests which possess no educational value.
9. Would you say that burglars, thieves, pickpockets, murderers, have no interests?
10. Illustrate from your own experience the fact that you may really care for an end, and yet find the means which are necessary to attain it so uninteresting that you cannot bring yourself to employ them.
DEMOCRACY AND EDUCATION.
The Connection Between Education and the Form of Government. — Education deals with members of society, not with isolated human beings. And the duties of men manifestly differ with the forms of the society to which they belong. The duties of American citizens, for example, differ in important particulars from those of the citizens of Germany. It would, of course, be absurd to say that the society of any highly civilized country under a monarchical form of government has anything in common with the caste system. But the society of Germany, or even of England, has far less of mobility than is characteristic of the society of this country. The theory that underlies the governments of England and Germany is that birth, as such, is entitled to special powers and privileges. The theory that underlies our own government is that every man has the right to make the most of himself and his life, without being hampered by artificial distinctions. Now, a government based on the aristocratic theory is logically bound to make different provisions for the education of different classes, provided it makes any provision whatever for the education of the masses. If certain classes have an inherent right to certain special privileges, it is the duty of the society of which they are members to see to it that they have the education that prepares them to make a right use of them. If it is the duty of another class to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, and to permit their so-called superiors to think for them on important questions of government, then the education which would inflate them with the notion that they can think for themselves is an absurdity.
The German School System. - It is indeed true that Germany not only offers education to all classes of German citizens, but makes a certain amount of it compulsory. But this policy of educating the masses was entered upon because German statesmen and the members of the class entitled to special privileges by virtue of their birth realized that this was the only means through which the governing powers could regain the prestige of which they had been deprived by Napoleon, and the privileged class its position of importance in the State. But the same clearness of perception required them to recognize the fact that this education must be limited both in quantity and quality. For if the aristocracy of birth did not entitle its possessors to special educational advantages, how could it entitle them to special privileges ? While, therefore, the German government does not erect barriers that make university education impossible to the lower classes, it does interpose obstacles which it is exceedingly difficult to surmount. The government says in substance to its citizens : “You are entitled to the completest possible development of your powers
you are members of a certain class; otherwise, to that amount of education, and no more, which will make you useful to the government." Says Professor James E. Russell : “The greatest defect in the German school system is the organization which fosters distinctions of class and sex. The common schools are for the common people, the real-schools are for the middle classes, the classical schools are for the aristocracy. . . . If class prejudice did not exist, one high school could easily perform all the functions of secondary education by the simple arrangement of elective subjects. No such axiom as that the school exists for the pupil is recognized in German educational philosophy. The German school exists primarily for the state. The pupil is a citizen in training. That he should be an obedient, legal, submissive subject is a selfevident truth. Respect for authority is the one essential prerequisite to German citizenship. In the selection of a school and the course of study, in seeking admission to the university and the vocations of civil life, the individual has little freedom of choice. The rigorous discipline of the schools, which brooks no opposition and tolerates no parental interference; the methods of instruction, which leave nothing to chance and individual initiative; the system of privileges, which dominates teachers and pupils alike — all tend to the development of character which feels no restriction of personal liberty in the constant surveillance of the police and the rule of a military despotism. .. German society is founded on the principle that the greatest good of each is included in the greatest good of all, rather than on the principle that the greatest good of all is subserved by the highest individual development of each." 1
Professor Peck on Universal Education. This is not said in criticism of the methods of education of aristocratic societies. As Plato held that the interests of the masses would be best promoted by absolute submission to a few thoroughly trained philosophers, so a man to-day may hold that the interests of all classes will be best subserved by putting special privileges in the hands of an aristocracy. Nor is this view without representatives in the United States. Says Professor Harry Thurston Peck : “ Linked closely with many other very serious educational mistakes, and from many points of view by far the most profoundly serious of them all, is that curious fancy that education in itself and for all human beings is a good and thoroughly desirable possession. So axiomatic is this held to be that its principle has been incorporated into the constitutions of many of our States, and not only is education made free to all, but in most States is made compulsory upon all. There is probably in our whole system to-day no principle so fundamentally untrue as this, and there is certainly none that is fraught with so much social and political peril for the future. For education means ambition, and ambition means discontent."
1 Russell's German Higher Schools, pp. 420, 421.
Nor are we left in doubt as to the political philosophy which underlies these views of education.
“It [the university) should produce for the service of the State men such as those who in the past made empires and created commonwealths — a small and highly trained patriciate, a caste, an aristocracy, if you will. For every really great thing that has been accomplished in the history of man has been accomplished by an aristocracy. It may have called itself a sacerdotal or a military aristocracy, or an aristocracy based on birth and blood, yet these distinctions were but superficial; for in reality it always meant one thing alone — the community of interest and effort in those whose intellectual force and innate gift of government enabled them to dominate and control the destinies of States, driving in harness the hewers of wood and