December 8, 2006

• Inspired by Philosophy and "In Defense of Elitism:"

      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.
  

  • 5:04 pm
  • 5 Comments