Over the past half century, the idea of public
education has gradually become more of a right than a privilege. At one
time, graduating high school was a decorous mark on one’s resume; now,
however, it is almost laughable for someone to endeavor for a
respectable job with only a high school diploma to their credit. And
with this notion follows the idea that college is now thought of as a
right of passage for those who have managed to wake up and attend their
classes regularly for twelve years. This inclination holds true, as the
percent of high school graduates who go on to college is irreversibly
on the rise.
Also apparent is the trend of congestion in
particularly popular fields of study; forensics, law, and journalism
are the new business majors. What is to happen to all those students
who get out of college only to find out that the supply of graduates in
their degree greatly outnumbers the demand for them? And yet another
question to ask is: if this egalitarian movement towards higher
education continues, and seemingly every high school graduate goes on
to pursue a degree, who will work in the factories?
Educational reform is greatly needed in this
country, but it seems that each attempt supported by our leaders is a
step in the wrong direction. Our latest educational reform act, aptly
named “No Child Left Behind,” is the perfect example of our leaders’
failure to remedy America‘s plague that is mediocrity. I’ll touch upon
this thought in a more detailed manner latter on.
With no further postponement, I’ll submit that our
leaders would benefit greatly by reading Plato’s Republic. Plato’s
concept of an education system–where all are included in the beginning
and then gradually taken out and put into their respective caste
according to merit– seems, to me, to be the best candidate for
educational reform. While this system was used primarily for the
selection of who would rule in Plato’s ideal society, it’s principles
could also be exploited for determining what style of occupation every
citizen of a society could acquire.
To some extent, this concept has already been
realized in England. Their education is broken into tiers much like our
elementary, middle, and high schools, but at the end of each tier,
those who show neither aptitude nor diligence to succeed are then
transferred over to a lesser vocational school, such as for mechanical
work or carpentry. Those who do show promise are rewarded with
progression to the next tier. This “thins out the crowd,” so to speak,
and creates less congestion in higher education when compared to a
system like the United States’.
Regardless of whether or not the act works according
to its intent, our country’s No Child Left Behind act is completely
averse to Plato’s meritocracy. Instead of inspiring any sort of
motivation in students to compete and excel out of fear of not
progressing (and ultimately not living to their full potential), the
stipulations set by NCLB cause schools to lower academic standards so
lesser students can still pass by.
Another effect of NCLB is that genuinely gifted
and/or driven students end up being grouped with their
less-than-stellar peers, and benefit less from the achievement of their
education than they would otherwise. Any astute follower of Plato
should be upset by this aspect of our system and how it looks after the
stragglers rather than glorify the excellent.
Perhaps instead of limiting this philosophy to only
our leaders, Plato’s Republic should be read by the entirety of this
nation. One problem driving acts such as NCLB into execution is the
naturally egalitarian sentiments held by our citizens; instead of being
satisfied with a land of equal opportunity, we are collectively in
favor of and striving towards a land of equal success; instead of
believing that everyone is responsible for their own disposition, we
believe that they were not given enough chances to succeed.
I do not mean to say that every American is so
egalitarian, as fact that I am American disproves such a statement. It
would be better to justify my claim by saying that somewhere in the
chain of power– whether it be representatives, supreme justices,
senators, our president, or the whole of the three branches– this
mentality of “excelling without justification” runs rampant enough to
allow something like No Child Left Behind to pass.
It is common understanding that Elitism is in direct
opposition of Egalitarianism. Alongside this, Elitism is a word usually
dealt out with a negative connotation. It seems to me that it should
not be so; to be in favor Elitism, defined as belief in the rule of
elite (or ‘distinguished,’ to use a similar, yet more favorable,
moniker), is to be in favor of Plato’s ideal. If anything, this
antipode of Plato, Egalitarianism, should be the less favorable term.
To clarify, let me set another query before you: is it crueler to make
civilization realize that some people simply do not succeed in life and
separate them into castes, or to let them keep on fooling themselves
that everyone can be their own boss someday?
To assume that a hypothetical society–one where all
members would read and truly follow the principles set by Plato– could
exist may be too prospective. Nevertheless, I maintain that such a
society would be better than the one we currently live in. If such a
purely Platonist society did exist, it would be void of envy. Everyone
under the same allegiance would willingly accept that they are
responsible for their place in life, and they would be unable to hold
others who excel in contempt, for they were given the same opportunity
to succeed and failed, by their own doing, to do so.
Recent Comments