Facebook Posts
Put aside the "how will schools and universities cope with AI?" for a minute, and think about our brains.
I still remember a pivotal class in graduate school: I was doing an M.A. in literature, but I took an elective seminar in linguistics. That class was the hardest I'd worked (possibly, then or since). I had to line up four different schools of linguistic theory and explain what they had in common, and how they were different.
As this was in the Dark Ages, I had to do this without outside help.
I made a chart. I hand-wrote everything that I knew of each school on that chart. I lined up each element of each school side by side. I wrote painstaking paragraphs about each element. I assembled them into an essay.
By the end of it that essay, I *understood* what I was doing. I knew what those linguistic schools were about. More than that, I had learned how to take a set of conflicting, complicated ideas and put them into my own framework.
(And the professor wrote, at the top of the essay, that it was the best one on the subject he'd ever seen. These things matter.)
I've often said that wrestling with a difficult set of ideas and finding understanding is, for me, like the moment when (to use a farm metaphor) you back up the truck with a bumper ball hitch, lower the trailer coupler over it, and feel the sweet moment when the coupler snaps into place. It's a viscerally satifisfying connection. (Maybe some of you can offer a less trailer-based metaphor; I do this a couple of times a week, so that's what comes to mind for me.)
Now, I could ask AI to produce that chart for me. It would be a great chart. It just wouldn't do the same work for my brain.
This week's NYTimes opinion column had an excellent take on this situation.
**
Writing well requires a command of vocabulary, spelling and grammar. It forces writers to comprehend a subject, to sift through their working memory of that topic, to organize and plan. Writing an essay is so difficult that a person in the throes of it can do hardly anything else — as anyone who has shushed a spouse or child while trying to compose a decent sentence can attest.
Very few people would volunteer to dig a ditch. Likewise, it is hard — almost impossible, many English teachers will admit — to turn a reluctant writer into an enthusiastic one.
Yet the American education system expects nearly all students to learn how to write an essay. It’s little wonder, then, that as soon as a tool arrived promising to lessen the pain people grabbed it.
Like it or not, artificial intelligence is now firmly embedded in how students produce text. Somewhere between two-thirds and 90 percent of high school and college students are already using A.I. for schoolwork, according to recent surveys, often requesting help with writing assignments.
A growing number of educators are alarmed, and insist that students should write without A.I. These teachers are returning to handwriting, blue books and proctored, in-class essay tests — all attempts to prevent students from outsourcing their writing to chatbots.
This is baffling to tech industry leaders, who see A.I. rejection as a form of educational malpractice. They point out that writing is already the leading use of A.I. in the workplace, and argue there is no need to continue suffering through the task without help. After all, they say, chatbots now exceed the ability of most human beings to produce fluent prose.
All this points to some questions about writing itself: Why work so hard to learn it? And what do students stand to lose when they stop facing down a blank page, alone with their thoughts?
...Research shows that traditional, unassisted composition is valuable, not despite its difficulty, but because of it. Writing builds our working memory, executive planning skills and metacognition — the ability to think about our thinking, weigh alternate viewpoints and revise for clarity and style. It takes decades to develop writing skills, from toddlerhood into adulthood...
[T]here is no part of the writing process that can be handed over to A.I. without some cost. Intellectual growth occurs at every stage, from brainstorming to fine-tuning a final draft. If writing is thinking, then any part of the struggle that is outsourced to technology amounts to relinquishing some freedom to perceive. How will students ever know what they really think of anything — whether it’s “The Crucible” or A.I. itself — if they ask a machine to spit out an answer for them?
**
Those who want to do the hard work of thinking will write.
Those who don't will cheat.
I'm guessing that there will be an early advantage for the cheaters, and a longer-term advantage for the thinkers. It's possible that our task as responsible parents and pre-AI thinkers is to hold onto some semblance of culture while those advantages shake themselves out.
What Do Students Lose When They Stop Writing? (Gift Article)
www.nytimes.com
Educators are worried that many students can no longer write essays without A.I. And it’s costing more than just grammar skills.10 hours ago
This is so small in comparison - I run our church's social media - which is relatively inconsequential. I started using ChatGPT to write the posts for me. It was so quick and I could get a lot of posts done in a very short amount of time. I guided Chat, I gave parameters and asked it to write in the same tone I had been writing in, and it did an ok job of that. In fact, I thought it often wrote posts that were better than mine. However, my creativity took a steep dive. I began to struggle to know what kind of posts to write. I really began to struggle with creating the images - which had been my favorite part. At first, I attributed it to burnout (been doing this for 9 years, now). However, when I started writing them myself again, the creativity has been seeping back in and I enjoy the whole process so much more. I still use Chat every day for some things. I do not use it for my creative pursuits, though.
We need educators to stop stigmatizing, and start understanding, that writing is not the only, or best, way of thinking for everyone.
My students read aloud their essays in class. I had one student read the whole essay and then tell him that it was obviously AI. (It was 98% AI, he had worked on it for 15 minutes the night before.) 1. It was not in his writing voice. Every student has a writing style. 2. It was boring. AI writing is usually boring. It was also long-winded and repetitive. I told him to write an essay on a different subject and he would read it aloud next week, and I wouldn't tell his mom if it was done in time. That one came back as 98% Human and was much more interesting!
This conversation is interesting. I find myself on the other end of the spectrum, learning to use AI to speed up writing technical documents. Learning how to prompt and use different models and then redirecting to get an output that I concur with is mentally taxing. When you speed things up, you are expected to juggle more. The arguments, whether technical or essays, still have to make sense.
I have a very similar memory of taking molecular biology. It was the most difficult class I’d ever taken. We had to synthesize organic chemistry and cellular biology and write cogently in a blue book for our final exam. There was no b.s. Either you knew it or you didn’t haha. But…22 years later I still remember what I learned in that class. I didn’t use it in my career but I’m a better writer and educator for it. Thankfully some schools are pushing back. The classical school my teens attend just issued a strict no A.I. policy on top of an already intentionally low tech focus.
Interesting! I have seen similar arguments for a long time that similarly, mathematical thinking is developed more thoroughly when students are allowed to struggle to an appropriate degree, rather than being spoon-fed each step. I know that when I taught AP Stats, I loved hearing my TA's (former student peer mentors) advise the new crop of students, "Mrs. D. will tell you not to just skip or even just read the examples in the textbook, but to cover up the answers, work through the problem on paper, then compare your response to the longer explanation given in the example. When I first started, I ignore this advice. After the first exam, I started doing it, though, and boy did not only my scores go up, but I really felt like I understood the material." This, and some note-taking practice we did, left me feeling that these kids were heading off to college much better prepared to learn, and to be in charge of their own education, instead of waiting to be spoon-fed information!
I’ve been shocked to see English teachers themselves commenting on articles about AI, saying they encourage their students to use it for brainstorming or outlining, but that the students must do the “actual” writing. 🤯 The brainstorming and outlining, distilling a whole bunch of material and ideas into a coherent whole, is literally the main pedagogical value of a writing assignment! What will become of us? 🤦♀️
Don’t we make these similar tradeoffs with nearly everything we choose to either outsource or do ourselves from scratch? Cooking, yard work, car repairs, childcare. Sometimes our labor bears the best fruit, and other times, the outsource was totally worth it.
I have often said that I do not really know what I think until I see what I write about it. Writing is hard, but it is so satisfying, because it is thinking made visible. It is terrifying to me that kids are not learning to write, because in a LOT of ways, it means that they are not going to learn how to THINK. At the end of the day, I love writing, but I do not think it is necessary for everyone to write as much as I do or as well as I do. But it is deeply problematic that so few students are going to learn to do the thinking and the analysis that close writing forces.
Love this viewpoint. And I agree!!!!
It is the journey that forms us not the destination. The extensive writing that I did while earning my degree changed the way my brain worked. I felt sharper and my ability to easily put complex thoughts into language enhanced many aspects of my life. I am concerned for the kids who do not have to take on the arduous task of composing long papers on their own.
Every skill we outsource to AI with students is a skill we are not training their brains to do. What are we saving all this time and effort for? It seems like we aren’t growing our/their brains in some other direction… but rather just getting lazier. Maybe I’m just old and crotchety as a professor…
Following on yesterday’s post, I heard from many readers about how wonderful THE GOLDEN THREAD by James Hankins and Allen Guelzo is. Apparently this book has a larger footprint than I knew. So rather than offering thoughts based on the partial content that I have, as I’d planned, I’ve ordered BOTH volumes (gritting my teeth and proffering my AmEx) and I will review them before I say any more about the books. Stay tuned.
In the meantime: is “classical Christian” education inherently “patriotic,” as the Washington Post article seems to imply?
There are three adjectives in this question: classical, Christian, and patriotic.
We could argue ad infinitum (and scholars already have) about exactly what Plato, Socrates, Pericles, Cicero, etc., all the way through Rousseau, thought the virtuous citizen owed to his (rarely her) home. Social media is probably not the best forum for this discussion, as it’s long-form, complex, and nuanced. However, I don’t see a lot of citations of Plato and Pericles, let alone Rousseau, in the current American assertion that we should be teaching love of country as one of the highest values. But we can return to this part of the definition, if you all want to, in future posts.
How about “Christian” and “patriotic”?
Here’s the patriotism, from the official U. S. government transcript of Trump’s 250th anniversary speeches:
“For two and a half centuries, our American republic has stood as the crowning achievement of human history. This country is the home of freedom. This is the land of liberty, and this is a flag that's the banner of the most extraordinary, most exceptional, most incredible nation ever to exist on the face of the Earth….No people have done more good, shown more courage, made more progress, righted more injustice or achieved more greatness than you, the American people. For 250 years, the United States of America has been the hope, the promise, the light and the glory among all of the nations of the world…We have thrived and flourished because our founders were great, our cause was just, our people are brave, our culture is exceptional, and our destiny is written by God.”
In case you’re wondering, this form of patriotism—we love our country because God has made it the best country ever— is called “American exceptionalism.” (I’m attaching an explanatory link.) American exceptionalism doesn’t get much more plainly stated than in Trump’s speech, which includes the phrase “The Light and the Glory,” the title of Peter Marshall’s 1980 book explaining that America was the new Israel, decreed to inherit God’s covenant with the Jewish people.
As an American, I feel immense gratitude for my country, my state, my county, and the space that I have been granted to carry on a free and meaningful life. As a human being, I wish to recognize that the Swiss, the Brits, the Brazilians, the Canadians, the Ukranians, yea, even the Venezualans and Russians and Chinese can have similar emotions—with objections and sidebars. (I also have objections and sidebars.) As a historian, I am keenly aware of the number of nations that have claimed God’s anointing and then carried on to conquer, pillage, and destroy. And as a Christian, I reject American exceptionalism, since it’s based on bad and unbiblical theology.
Classical education should investigate the responsibilities of citizens to their governments, the ways in which they should be loyal, and the places where they should resist. Christian education should recognize the essential New Testament truth that we belong to a heavenly kingdom above all, no matter what our earthly citizenship happens to be.
I’ll be interested to see how the new military base schools thread that needle.
www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4533279/president-vice-president-address-nation-in-...
yalebooks.yale.edu/2017/02/28/a-brief-history-of-american-exceptionalism/
wapo.st/4zmCNwR
A Brief History of American Exceptionalism - Yale University Press
yalebooks.yale.edu
Burton Mack— “American exceptionalism,” a term that is currently making the rounds among journalists, denotes those features of American self-understanding that distinguish it from other modern societies, especially European nation-states. Most... READ MORE4 days ago
Just to pick on a small portion of that speech: I don’t like comparisons. America is greater? Why? Because “no people have done more good” than Americans? I’m perfectly happy to argue that America has accomplished extraordinary things. But “America has accomplished extraordinary things” is a defensible historical claim; “America has accomplished more good than every other people” requires a vastly different level of evidence. It isn’t really an argument for greatness so much as a declaration of superiority. That kind of rhetoric is particularly Trumpian, but I’m more interested in whether it is also the tenor of the classical curriculum. I could point to several logical weaknesses in that speech, as is often the case with political rhetoric, but more fundamentally, I think it is rhetorically weak. Surely a classical education should teach students to recognize the difference between loving and honoring their country and declaring their country superior to everyone else as political flattery.
Susan—I have a little background/ context into the Trump administration’s possible plans for DOD schools that is rather “interesting,” but would rather not go into detail on the public face of social media. If you’d like more send me a private message.
The historian states an inaccurate definition of American exceptionalism. Peter Marshal was restating the dominant views of American Puritans such as the great Jonathan Edwards who viewed the first Great Awakening as the possible beginning or foundation of the Millennium (in those days Puritans were post-millennialists). Most of us who believe in American exceptionalism refer to the fact that the founders created an exceptional form of government (and, yes, established by men, most of whom were Christians, and many were Puritans), the like of which and the success of which we would like to preserve.
I read the “Light and the Glory” over 40 years ago as well as “From Sea to Shining Sea”. I didn’t remember Marshall claiming that “America was the new Israel decreed to inherit God’s Covenant with the Jewish people”. I remember him saying that the Puritans and the Pilgrims considered themselves sent by God to a land they would later inherit as were the Jews. It was a comparison not a replacement. And it was William Bradford’s own words - not Marshall’s in the Mayflower Compact: "Having undertaken, for the GLORY of GOD and advancement of the CHRISTIAN FAITH , and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia.” So yes… they felt a sense of destiny and I would say- fulfilled it. And as far as American Exceptionalism- Our Revolution was “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World”. Pretty Exceptional.
And this is why I follow you and use your history books in our homeschool.
I had a long and interesting conversation with Annie Ma as she was working on this piece. She was scrambling, as many people are, to define "classical education." I'm gratified to see that the piece ends up defining the new Pentagon educational enterprise as "centered on Western civilization and Christianity" rather than "classical."
Is there anything wrong with an education centered on Western civilization and Christianity? Not if that's what you're looking for.
Should that be the emphasis of the public education provided to citizens of a multifaith democracy with a Constitution that guards against the establishment of religion? Many classical scholars, including me, would answer 'no.'
Would we call this "classical"? In my opinion, absolutely not.
I have not yet had an opportunity to review the textbook cited, because it is stupid expensive and I'm still not sure I want to support the publisher by shelling out nearly $200 for one volume. However, I've received some scans of various sections, and I'll look forward to digging into those (more tomorrow).
For starters, though, I'd like to emphasize a point I made when talking to Ms. Ma, which is that classical education is not "patriotic" in the sense that the current administration is using the adjective. (From the piece: "Conservative politicians have embraced classical learning, especially as the Trump administration and Republican-led states have pushed schools to emphasize patriotism and put boundaries around how they teach unflattering parts of American history.")
Not even in its Greek and Roman beginnings did classical education emphasize "patriotism." Rather, Greek and Roman thought encouraged critical analysis of the political leadership, and constant debate over whether leaders are/were acting with justice and rightness. The Renaissance renewal of classical learning was even less concerned with patriotism, in large part because the idea of a nation-state in the Renaissance was constantly in flux. This pasting of "Your nation is best, no matter what" into the definition of "classical learning" is simply ahistorical idiocy.
Have a read, post your (politely expressed) opinions, and I'll be back tomorrow with a few more reflections.
AP Exclusive: US military base schools put new emphasis on Western civilization and Christianity
wapo.st
The Department of Defense is introducing a course centered on Western civilization and Christianity this fall in the schools it operates for military families4 days ago
Our nickname for Golden Thread is “Story of the World for Grownups,” so please let us know if you don’t endorse.
A successful state requires patriotism and a strong identity to its existence. I strongly doubt any classical teacher or thinker would entertain the idea of hating the institution that provided the environment to be learned.
The book costs $72 on Amazon. I'll send you a copy if you like, so you can see just how distorted the AP piece was. If you are on X, you can look at my responses there. BTW I support the study of non-Western cultures as part of classical education, though classical students need to prioritize Western civilization if they are to h understand the world they live in, not to mention all those 'great books' we would both recommend. Great Hearts Institute Hillsdale College
Understanding how the Catholic Church shaped western civilization would benefit all students. Glossing over American history is another problem. We can be patriotic and acknowledge failings of imperfect people. I am interested to hear more.
I don't have the book but it's been on my wish list because I heard Jonah Goldberg discuss it with the authors on his podcast (he opposes many of the people and actions of the current administration) and I know one of the authors teaches at the Hamilton School for Classical and Civil Education at UF. These two things made me curious about the book and I'd be really interested in your thoughts as well.
If anyone finds a version of the article carried by a publication which hasn’t put it behind a paywall, please share.
I have the book. I haven’t used it yet as a primary text, but I did use it to help design an Empires of the World class that I taught at a recent homeschool co-op. It’s well-researched and engaging.
Yeah patriotism is a weird obsession for anyone who claims to be Christian - part of a worldwide family/holy nation which is Christ’s church - overlaying and ultimately replacing every nation state that has ever been or exists now. How do you have loyalty to a fallen world nation state above loyalty to brothers and sisters in Christ in other nations? Nothing in the OT would indicate that patriotism is a value for Gods people. God says he chose Israel NOT because they were exceptional or great, but because he loved them. And never is the goal for them to become exceptional or great, but to be Gods light to the world - which they don’t do, because humans can’t do that apart from rebirth in Christ. Patriotism seems so in conflict with the biblical story of both testaments.
I’m currently reading Talking Classics by Mary Beard and I really like how she talks about the ways politicians throughout the ages have used (and misused) classical civilization to their own ends. (Which I understand is different from classical education, but related for sure.)
Classical education is about passing on the tradition of the Christian West, so it absolutely does have a lot to do with Western civilization and Christianity. But it isn’t Trumpian or Christian nationalist.
Classical education, in its original form, is not Christian. But, it is clear how so many of its ideas and questions are fulfilled in Christ.
Doesn’t Plato associate piety, at least in part, with honoring one’s parents and ancestors? And didn’t both the Greeks and Romans have rather outsized views of their own civilizations? It seems like you’re swinging too far in the opposite direction here. Classical education certainly encouraged criticism of political leaders and regimes, but that’s not the same thing as saying it was somehow detached from civic loyalty, inherited tradition, or a strong sense of civilizational superiority. It seems like a prelude to even having classical education is the assumption that past generations have something to teach us, and that starts with Plato's fuller sense of what piety is.
Having taught at three "classical Christian schools", I welcome SWB's distinctions.
If a society is expecting people to sign up to defend that society, up to the point of giving your life for that society, it us not at all unreasonable to teach pride and love for that society. That doesn't mean blind ignorance of that society's flaws and that is not what is being taught, so far as I have seen. But it DOES mean not actively teaching people the flaws predominantly as has unfortunately been the case for many years. If you expect the people who defend you to being willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, you damn sure better give them something worth that price to believe in.
Some commenters have not listened to Susan's podcast. I recommend season 1 episodes 3, 4, 5, and 9; and Season 5 episode 7.
I agree, while it may have value (the book and proposed class), it is not an essential part of classical education . The classical thinkers were BC….thus Christianity is not an innate component of a classical education (I say this as a devout Christian). I am tired of people throwing about the term “classical education” when they either don’t know what it refers to or they know and don’t care that they are being misleading.
Have you read Christopher Dawson’s The Crisis of Western Education? I would very much encourage you to do so, and then refine your position. I’m afraid you are very much mistaken with your understanding of what constitutes a classical education in the post-Renaissance sense. It’s fairly commonplace and obvious that a study of Western civilization and Christian culture has been at the very heart of classical education until fairly recently.
I completely agree with your take on this. Am I surprised? Not in the slightest. I’m so thankful to no longer be part of homeschooling groups, as my youngest is finally moving beyond needing anything like that. Having spent years around “classical Christian” groups, it is amazing what they can convince themselves classical education actually is.
I think back on my years in one of the better public schools in NY and wonder how anyone thinks public education can avoid having a slant. E. B. White wrote, “All writing slants the way a writer leans, and no man is born perpendicular.” Well, who writes the curriculum? Who chooses the books? Who decides what gets emphasized and what gets ignored? Obviously, those decisions are going to reflect the people making them. I just started teaching American History to a group of 11th graders, and this quote from White was our day-one discussion. I remember reading Lord of the Flies my senior year without much discussion of Golding’s very pessimistic view of human nature. I never learned the five-paragraph essay because NY schools had moved away from teaching it, and I also wasn’t given much structure to replace it. Sex ed treated abstinence and natural methods with disdain while giving us a whole menu of contraceptives. Government class made us fiercely loyal to Benjamin Franklin, but somehow modern political ideas and policies were off-limits. How can anyone think teacher opinions and priorities didn’t seep through? I can see now how they did for me, but my education continued for many years into studying propaganda, history, debate, and more. And there were certainly students who could debate and think critically, but that was rarely what school itself required. Most of school was still: sit down, be quiet, and listen. Teachers had largely untouchable authority. So when someone points out that Classical education has a particular angle, I think: of course it does. Public education does too. There is no education without some slant. What interests me is what happens after the student receives it. Classical education puts much more emphasis on questioning, discussion, self-study, argument, and examining opposing ideas. I’d much rather give a student an education with a noticeable slant and teach him how to recognize and challenge it than pretend he received no slant at all.
Fascinating!!! I’ve had pieces of multiple types of education. Including classical. I don’t know which one is preferred. Specifically for a military school. But I will say that I don’t remember a lot of the historical education I recieved- but I do remember everyone of the full books I read.
As a former teacher at a classical Christian school, I thank you for making these critical distinctions.
Absolutely! I completely agree that critical thinking, debate, and questioning those in power are at the heart of a true classical education, not unquestioning nationalism. I strongly disagree with the administration’s attempt to redefine education around patriotism and a narrow version of Western civilization and Christianity. Thank you for sharing your insight and knowledge!
Maybe there’s just confusion over what exactly conservatism is.
The Lesson plans for this book are in conjunction with Hillsdale. My school uses Hillsdale for its Civics Course. Excellent - dedicated to education and Christian History.
Excellent points!
