But, I have banged heads in disagreement with Manxman frequently enough to feel some obligation to support him when I think he is right. When Manxman says that Education is a huge self serving business entity, and that a great many students access it, not out of a desire for knowledge, but rather as a credential for a GOOD JOB, he is right on the money. People treat an education like it is a product that can be purchased (when I enroll my child in a “good” school, I expect him to receive a “good” education). If junior comes out of the school without good grades and honors, then the school has failed to provide what it was paid to provide. This is why we often have parents contending with educators over whether their child should receive a bad grade or some disciplinary penalty. I’m not paying tuition or taxes for bad grades or a poor disciplinary record. I’m paying for a “good education” and I expect to see some results.

I also question how much difference the school makes at the primary and secondary levels. Frankly, if you took the most prestigious private school in your city and the most chaotic inner city public school, and switched the student bodies, does anybody here seriously believe that the inner city student body would become a bunch of Einsteins and the preppy student body would become a bunch of drop-outs? I believe that the most important factor in whether individual students learn is the common expectations of the students’ parents, then comes the individual personality of the individual student’s parents, then comes the talent and ambition of the individual student, then, in a very distant fourth place, comes the quality of the faculty and facilities.

For the record, I would not normally call somebody dishonest in a conversation unless I had a lot of credibility with that person. I would normally point out the discrepancy and hope they realize the dishonesty themselves. Nevertheless, this thread was not a conversation with the dead professor nor was it a communication to him.

I guess where we differ is that I do think it’s my place to “call a person dishonest” as it were. In a particular instance on a particular topic, and assuming the the person’s honesty makes a difference in how I act, I only have two choices. I can act as though a person is being honest, or I can act as though a person is being dishonest. The choice is mine and therefore my duty is to make the best determination I can based on the evidence I have. If I were to refrain from making a determination, I would still be acting as though it were one way or the other; I would just be doing it absentmindedly–and probably less accurately.

great. I would apply all you say about yourself to myself. But to assert that in others is another matter.

we are ALL sinners. i can assume that we all have the same sins lurking or manifest. but it is not for me to call someone dishonest. they may just be inconsistent. maybe painfully and obviously so. I CAN point out those inconsistencies, ask that person to admit to that, IF i know him personally…. otherwise, probably best to leave the ad homems alone….

in some ways the man was honest. more than some of us. I can truly identify with most of the sins of the nazis. if i happen to do that and say that I am no better than they are and that my ways are no better, that does not mean that I approve of that behavior. it does not make me a nazi. the writer that vieth mentions seems to be saying that the methods are the same used by everyone, nazis, the fundamentalists, and even himself. what justifies things is the ends. he is saying that means are justified by ends. that is his error.

his observation that fundamentalists seem to agree with him that means are justified by ends seems right exactly on the money to me.

now THAT is precisely what scares me.

I’ll take your thoughts paragraph by paragraph:

1. Yes, I did. No, they didn’t. They had a far better education than I did. Good public schools are the exception, rather than the rule. Even governmental agencies and the teachers’ unions admit that, especially when they are clamoring for an ever greater piece of our national wealth. So you think the concept of one size fits all, factory learning, where the poor performers pass so they can be pushed along to the next teacher, is the best approach to education?

2. Not every public school is horrible. Not every home school is great. We can agree on that point. However, the evidence is that home schoolers perform academically, on average, much better than public schoolers. I’m not sure what you mean by your last sentence. If you mean that home schooling parents desire to inculcate their own values into the children God has given them, rather than godless values imposed on the public schools, than I’m pleased to agree with you. Our “agenda” for our children is that they learn to love God, to trust Christ for their salvation, and to live out their lives in service to Him. None of those values, fundamental to the life of a Christian, are taught in the public schools.

3. We taught our children AP courses, and then arranged for them to take the AP tests for those subjects through a local private school. They did very well. My son played varsity baseball through a local private school. Our home school organization offers band, choir, drama, etc. Our children are not deprived of those types of extra-curricular activities in any way.

4. Agreed, but the number of such parents is remarkably small. It is mostly a matter of desire and commitment on the part of the parents.

5. I’m not Lutheran, but I think the point being made is that monasteries served a very important purpose during the Dark Ages. That is not exactly a defense of monasticism, is it?

What is missing in your response is any acknowledgment of the value of home schooling in discipling our children. The fact of the matter is that we only have so many waking hours to raise our children. Public school (or any traditional school, for that matter) takes them away from us for 6 1/2 waking hours per day, 180 days or so per year, plus travel to and from school, and any extra-curricular activities they may be involved in. Two or more hours of homework per day limits the parents to about two waking hours per school day spent with their children. During that prime waking time, secular values are being imposed on our children. How can that be good, if the whole purpose of our having children is to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?

Look, I’m not going to argue that every public school is great or even good — it would be just as foolish as arguing as every home school is great or even good. You can’t argue that, because it depends almost wholly on the teachers. And home schoolers aren’t free from the problems of poor teaching. Can you claim otherwise? You’d have a hard time convincing me that home schoolers do not also push an agenda, from the way you argue.

But in no way could my parents have taught me AP calculus, AP computer science, AP Spanish, AP Physics, Band, or any other course I took in my later years in high school. Nor do I remember anything about “P.C. garbage”. Perhaps you will argue that schools have only gone downhill as you describe in the past 10 or so years? Is it possible there are still good public schools?

Some parents are not very good teachers. If this were not so, it would be obvious. Children of those parents would do better to have someone else teach them.

As a side note, when did Lutherans get so defensive of monasticism?

I graduated with a mechanical engineering degree through a 3:2 program (Houghton College/University of Delaware). You are correct — it is an excellent academic option and the education I received, both academically and spiritually, has served me well over the years.

A small bone to pick with you regarding the second paragraph of your post @ 20. #’s 1 and 2 are not either/or, or at least they don’t have to be. First, regarding your point # 1 — almost any parent can provide a better education than is received through the public schools. Public schools are politically correct factories — mandated to waste a significant portion of the education day teaching P.C. garbage, and designed so that teachers hand off under-achieving students to the next teacher at the next grade level. There is no one caring person who shepherds a student through the learning process, year after year. Contrast that approach with one where a loving parent sits down with their child day after day, year after year, understanding that child’s every need and wanting nothing more than to see that child succeed. Home schooling parents fail when they don’t trust their God-given ability to teach their children in the way God designed for it to happen, and farm them out to a series of ad hoc classes taught by people who can’t even get a regular teaching job.

As for your point #2 — we protect our children from some of the world’s influences while they are being discipled. It is not shielding for the sake of shielding, it is shielding for the purpose of reducing distraction until the child is fully equipped to face the world on his/her own. Not unlike monasteries, which shielded monks so that they could focus on their education and meditation.

I, too, have been pushing administration at PHC to consider expanding into hard science majors — it’s an issue of money and other resources, of course. Someday……

They are great programs, and since students do attend the Christian college for three years and don’t take any courses at the large university outside the engineering department, it somewhat ameliorates the issues some have with anti-religious indoctrination in other parts of the university.

But you’re right, most Christian colleges/universities don’t have the kind of comprehensive engineering programs that bigger uni’s do, mainly just because of the expense of running such a program and hiring faculty (who could just as easily make 6 figures in industry as make ~$50K/year at a small college). That’s why I think the 3:2 programs are a win-win for students and the universities they attend.

1) I’ve frequently read about professors like Rorty, but I’ve yet to meet one (or at least one that sticks in my mind). While that attitude may be common in the liberal arts, it is not in the hard sciences and engineering, whether among students or faculty. This is anecdotal, of course, but a few months ago I did note that Phillip Johnson made a similar observation in his column in Touchstone.
2) I’ve met/known many Christian engineering faculty who are completely open about their faith to faculty and students (in fact, two of my collaborators are fellow LCMS members). In my experience at state universities, of American-born engineering faculty, the majority are openly known to be active in their churches. I don’t know any engineering faculty who openly express attitudes like Rorty’s toward their students’ faith.
3) As far as I know, Valparaiso is the only Lutheran school with an engineering program – but with only 3 majors (and no chemical engineering) and no MS or PhD programs it provides extremely limited opportunities. There are very few comprehensive engineering programs at Christian colleges or universities (not counting schools like Duke). Notre Dame is the only one that comes immediately to mind in chemical engineering, and I don’t think that’s the type of school people posting here have in mind when they discuss Christian higher education.
4) Engineering majors require 15-18 cr (10-15% of the total) of humanities and liberal arts (including at least 2 English courses – no, technical writing doesn’t count). Geometry and algebra are remedial subjects for engineering students (i.e., no credit given toward graduation). Liberal arts majors do not have comparable requirements in math and science – yet they frequently tout the breadth of their education, often by drawing a direct contrast with engineering majors.