There is a very interesting article in the NY Times on the value of character in education. First a few snippets and then some commentary.
For the headmaster of an intensely competitive school, Randolph, who is 49, is surprisingly skeptical about many of the basic elements of a contemporary high-stakes American education. He did away with Advanced Placement classes in the high school soon after he arrived at Riverdale; he encourages his teachers to limit the homework they assign; and he says that the standardized tests that Riverdale and other private schools require for admission to kindergarten and to middle school are “a patently unfair system” because they evaluate students almost entirely by I.Q. “This push on tests,” he told me, “is missing out on some serious parts of what it means to be a successful human.”
The most critical missing piece, Randolph explained as we sat in his office last fall, is character — those essential traits of mind and habit that were drilled into him at boarding school in England and that also have deep roots in American history. “Whether it’s the pioneer in the Conestoga wagon or someone coming here in the 1920s from southern Italy, there was this idea in America that if you worked hard and you showed real grit, that you could be successful,” he said. “Strangely, we’ve now forgotten that. People who have an easy time of things, who get 800s on their SAT’s, I worry that those people get feedback that everything they’re doing is great. And I think as a result, we are actually setting them up for long-term failure. When that person suddenly has to face up to a difficult moment, then I think they’re screwed, to be honest. I don’t think they’ve grown the capacities to be able to handle that.”
I believe this to be true. Chief among these missing character attributes in perseverance, but more on that later. But, as is typical, since this is the NY Times, we veer a little off course.
It was, in other words, exactly what Randolph and Levin had been looking for, separately, even if neither of them had quite known it. Seligman and Peterson consulted works from Aristotle to Confucius, from the Upanishads to the Torah, from the Boy Scout Handbook to profiles of Pokémon characters, and they settled on 24 character strengths common to all cultures and eras. The list included some we think of as traditional noble traits, like bravery, citizenship, fairness, wisdom and integrity; others that veer into the emotional realm, like love, humor, zest and appreciation of beauty; and still others that are more concerned with day-to-day human interactions: social intelligence (the ability to recognize interpersonal dynamics and adapt quickly to different social situations), kindness, self-regulation, gratitude.
In most societies, Seligman and Peterson wrote, these strengths were considered to have a moral valence, and in many cases they overlapped with religious laws and strictures. But their true importance did not come from their relationship to any system of ethics or moral laws but from their practical benefit: cultivating these strengths represented a reliable path to “the good life,” a life that was not just happy but also meaningful and fulfilling.
I too believe in the practical benefits of good character, but to suggest their importance, or the value of values has nothing to do with morality represents wishful thinking of those who know too well their own character deficiencies. To confirm this, we need only read on a few paragraphs.
What appealed to Levin about the list of character strengths that Seligman and Peterson compiled was that it was presented not as a finger-wagging guilt trip about good values and appropriate behavior but as a recipe for a successful and happy life. He was wary of the idea that KIPP’s aim was to instill in its students “middle-class values,” as though well-off kids had some depth of character that low-income students lacked. “The thing that I think is great about the character-strength approach,” he told me, “is it is fundamentally devoid of value judgment.”
Promoting character without value judgement is like trying to re-invent bread without the yeast.
Yet, there are positives to be taken out of this. The recognition, even if skewed, that character counts. A thirsty man does not at first think of the source from which the water springs. Yet, over time, if he is an honest fellow he will discover what countless generations before us took for granted. God is the source of the character you seek.
September 19, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Odd, I was just thinking of this back-way-around way to God last night– reading Terry Pratchett. (I swear, each book gets more Catholic.)
Guess I shouldn't be too surprised that folks are trying to dodge away from where reason leads them.
September 20, 2011 at 5:08 am
Apparently, the guy doesn't believe in testing out of college classes. How is cutting AP classes from the curriculum supposed to be an improvement? "Suck it up, kids, your expensive college education just got pricier! Think of me, when you're wasting a whole year on intro classes!"
September 20, 2011 at 1:03 pm
suburbanbanshee, I was under the impression that one can take AP exams without taking classes geared towards passing those exams. For example, I took the AP Chemistry and Calculus exams even though my school did not have AP Chemistry or Calculus classes (we did have AP History and English).
In fact, looking at the website, I see that they even have special notes for homeschoolers.
In addition to that, college entrance exams can also place people out of introductory courses.
September 20, 2011 at 2:12 pm
It's better than the lord of the flies approach the secularist vacuum has created and revels in, but, it's not going to be 'enough', not for the secularist values of good health, or for community. These will be parsed and admired as constructs, but the moment they are attempted to be put into practice, there will be no avoiding value judgments as he calls them. At least these kids will have a clue of a concept. But there is no 'incentive' to lure them away from pushing the next guy down to get ahead which is the current reigning approach for almost all secularist institutions. Philosophizing and theorizing, critical thinking is all great, but it doesn't amount to character. There are certain other elements that all must buy into and if they are all just constructs then no one will, why should they,
September 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Of course there is a whiff of anti-Christian sentiment that says that the way religious faith encourages these exact same virtues amounts to a "finger-wagging guilt trip". These guys must not know any joyful Christians. Sad. Still it's always existed and still exists despite the hyping caricature. It's sort of a secret I guess, something that isn't comprehended. But at some point down the road a lot of these virtues will be recognized by someone who comes across them as emanating from God, and then what will happen. Will that be tolerated or harshed upon with finger wagging guilt trip as a "value judgment"? Accumulating knowledge about types and varieties of character traits certainly doesn't make them concrete. There are a lot of other factors that go into that 'equation'.
September 20, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Finger-wagging Peterson told me, “is it is fundamentally devoid of value judgment.”
September 20, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Of course, it's not sufficient "character" just to work hard. You also have to be honest, brave, etc. and of course none of those has any connection to any system of ethics or moral laws …