In "Our English Syllabus," C.S. Lewis gives his opinion on learning and what that really means. He says that "learning, considered in itself, has, on my view, no connexion at all with education." The first time I read this, I did not really understand by what he meant exactly by education and learning. In a traditional sense, "getting an education" and "learning" can be seen as synonyms. Typically both are associated with a school setting, such as in "Our English Syllabus" as Lewis is addressing the English Society at Oxford University. But Lewis explains how education deals with developing skills and fundamentals while on the other hand learning is an attitude, the active pursuit of knowledge, used in life to invest deeply in something. Lewis suggests that one find their passion and chase after it wholeheartedly. He thinks it is better to understand one area thoroughly than to spread your learning thinly over many different areas. He says that there is simply too much to learn everything well, so it is better to learn thing well instead of trying in vain to cover everything. He uses the example of not being able to learn the geography of the whole world, so instead focusing on Great Britain. Another approach would be to learn the highlights of the world wherever they may be found. On these two methods, he says: "The first would give him a real though limited knowledge of nature--would teach him how one country smelled, looked, lived, and died. But the second might make him a mere globe trotter." He ends the essay by saying that people must pursue their knowledge instead of allowing institutions to limit or control their learning.
When I first read this, I did not really understand fully what he meant by these terms, as a result I did not agree with it much. After our discussion today it makes more sense but I am not sure still if I agree fully with Lewis on this topic. I definitely feel like I have to read it a few more times before I can figure it out. At first I seemed to me that he was saying that we college students should only focus on one area. That idea does not really match up well with the liberal arts model we have here at Calvin, where we have a considerable amount of core that needs to be completed for graduation. But I believe that our core classes is an important part of our life at Calvin, and it can be considered part of our education still, while our learning begins in a way with our studies within our major. I think it is important that we do have a strong core because that foundation can elevate our learning and complement our passions. In class we talked about how right now is a type of “middle stage” between our education and our learning, which I believe is a good way to look at it. I would like to hear other people’s opinions on what they think about this topic, in terms of education and learning at Calvin.
I think you make some great points Catherine. I have a hard time agreeing with him on the disadvantages of a composite curriculum. Breadth of knowledge seems to me to be a valuable thing in and of itself because we must live life and cannot simply remove from ourselves anything that is not our specialty. I realize that Lewis would say that education should prepare you for that, but I think that we always should be pushed to learn things that we would not have on our own. If we only take whatever is given to us by our teachers and do not try to learn on our own, then we will never discover reality, but that is true no matter how the syllabus is structured.
ReplyDeleteI agree with John here in that I am too fond of the composite curriculum to disregard it as thoroughly as Lewis does.
ReplyDeleteYou point out that Lewis encourages students to focus on one subject rather than trying to learn everything. This is true, but I don't think Lewis meant it as ignoring and avoiding all other subjects. As he says, "Every one of the suggested subjects is infinite, and, in its own way, covers the whole field of reality." It's almost like we each have to chose a starting point, but if we are truly 'learning' we will stumble and mingle among other subjects as well.
Here's where I believe we could redeem the "core curriculum" idea in Lewis' eyes: in the fact that classes rarely stay self-contained. More often than not, I find my psychology class spilling over into my biology class, biology spilling into chemistry, chemistry into physics, math into everything, and even huge jumps like biology into literature. Knowing other subjects helps me understand my major so much better.
I like what Larissa said.. it can even be scary how classes relate to each other sometimes without even trying. But I think that's the way it's supposed to be. Another way to redeem the core would be the "wide base" example we talked about today in class. I believe that having a core curriculum like the one at Calvin gives us a bigger advantage over others in the work world. A well-rounded worker, is a valuable worker.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the core is a very good part of a Calvin education. It has been proven to produce well rounded people and good employees. Lewis says education makes us more fully human. I do not think that the high school graduate is "human enough" yet to pursue only one field of knowledge on their own yet. I think students still need a composite curriculum at the undergraduate level in order to make then good men and women, like Aristotle describes.
ReplyDelete