Philosophy in Second Grade.

I'm sure I've said something like this before, but it peeves me that whenever there is social and political chatter about the state of education in our public schools the call is only for more math classes. If anything is cut out in this call for improvement it's more likely to be art and music classes, as if they were not as important for human development and fulfillment. And I rarely hear talk of adding philosophy, history, social studies and literature courses. Why is that? Let me guess that some people think an educated society is a society of engineers, rather than original thinkers, creators and poets. Indeed, some powerholders may even think that truly educated people are a danger to them and their ambitions.

I think your final statement bears a lot of credence, JL...

I think most states in the Old South prohibited slaves from being taught to read.

My son had just turned 5 when he wanted to know how microwave ovens work. He also asked "Does the sun shoot anything down to earth apart from light and heat." That question had never in my life to that date ever crossed my mind.

I think, too, that universities (and schools perhaps?) have tended to become job degree factories....you know, economic rationalism and anti-intellectualism combined.

Staff numbers have been cut a great deal, too, meaning that tutorials are huge.

I was fortunate, I think, to be able to pursue interests and learning for its own sake, knowing that I could do a job based qualification afterwards, without carrying a crippling debt...I feel sad for many kids these days who do not think beyond their course-work and exams.

Bah humbug.

That being said, I think maths and science ARE very important, too.

Speaking as a card-carrying nerd, I don't think schools are even doing nerds a favor by continuing to expand the nerdy classes at the expense of the humanities.

Case in point: Five years ago, I had a major discussion with my parents and my sisters about the wisdom of investing ones nest egg in General Motors bonds. The numbers seemed clear on their face. Standard and Poor's had rated the bond BBB+. (For non-nerds: that's the lowest investment-grade rating. Anything lower would indicate a junk bond, and would proscribe big investors like retirement funds from holding them.) But the yield on them was 1-2% higher than that of any other corporate bond with the same rating. (For non-nerds, the "yield" is basically the interest you get.) This high yield was the reason my sisters and my father wanted to invest in them.

At first I agreed. But then I started to think: what is more likely? That every investor but us had missed this significant point of arithmetic? Or that the market as a whole believed the risk of the bond was higher than Standard and Poor's rating indicated, and demanded a higher yield to pay for the extra risk? I decided it was the latter, and invested my money in something safer. With hindsight, it turned out I was right, and my sisters were wrong.

But that is not the point. The point is that even in the number-crunching business, math alone doesn't cut it. You need to interpret your numbers, or else they won't mean anything. You need to think critically about the motives of the actors that cause the numbers to be what they are, and to make intelligent guesses about the storyline behind it all. You don't learn that in math or science classes. You learn it in English classes, history classes, and civics classes. That's why it's so important for students to have them and schools to take them -- even if the students are future engineers, scientists, accountants, or other kinds of nerds.