What do you think?
Rate this book
The Theory of Education in the United States
Official Mises Institute EditionIt is hard to say what is most notable about this book published first in 1931:1. Albert Jay Nock's incredible disquisition on the real meaning of education and its role in a free society. 2. That these lectures were given at a university as part of a prestigious Page-Barbour lecture series.3. That they were delivered at a "public ivy" the University of Virginia.There is no way such a lecture series could appear on a campus of this sort today. For in these lectures, Nock goes to the heart of the matter of what is wrong with the structure of education in the United the policy, imposed by government, of universal admissions on the theory that everyone is equally educable.The book is made up of 14 lectures, each one building on the other. He begins with an understanding of what it means to be an educated person. He discusses the dissatisfaction of nearly everyone that US schools are not in fact turning out educated people. He turns to reform movements in education and provides a shocking round up of their history (keep in mind that this is 1931). He then spells out the difference between training and education and how Americans have completely overlooked the difference in the course of seeking economic and social uplift for everyone."Our system is based upon the assumption, popularly regarded as implicit in the doctrine of equality, that everybody is educable. This has been taken without question from the beginning; it is taken without question now. The whole structure of our system, the entire arrangement of its mechanics, testifies to this. Even our truant laws testify to it, for they are constructed with exclusive reference to school-age, not to school-ability."When we attempt to run this assumption back to the philosophical doctrine of equality, we cannot do it; it is not there, nothing like it is there. The philosophical doctrine of equality gives no more ground for the assumption that all men are educable than it does for the assumption that all men are six feet tall. We see at once, then, that it is not the philosophical doctrine of equality, but an utterly untenable popular perversion of it, that we find at the basis of our educational system."He goes further to attack the idea that literacy alone is capable of preserving freedom and civilization. He blasts the tendency to think that education is good so long as it encompasses the largest possible group ("no child left behind"). He says that in fact a good educational institution should have very few students.The range of radical thought here is nothing short of shocking, from his claim that very few should be in college to the point that vastly more people are tenured as professors than there should be (again, 1931).Three factors have changed since he wrote. First, the practice of universal education has expanded beyond a point which Nock himself could have imagined. Second, the classical ideal of education has become all but entirely unknown. Third, the economy has ever less use for the skills that the university teaches, so it has once again fallen back to private institutions to actually prepare people for a productive life.In this case, Nock is more relevant than ever before. But only read this incredible book (which was shocking in 1931) if you are prepared to completely rethink the basis of modern education.
170 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1931
9 people are currently reading
230 people want to read
About the author
Albert Jay Nock
60 books74 followersAmerican libertarian author, Georgist, social critic of the early and middle 20th century, outspoken opponent of the New Deal.
He served as a inspiration for the modern libertarian and Conservative movements.
He was one of the first Americans to self-identify as "libertarian"
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ckank/Ful...
He served as a inspiration for the modern libertarian and Conservative movements.
He was one of the first Americans to self-identify as "libertarian"
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ckank/Ful...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
July 19, 2019
9/10
Slight demerit for author's anticapitalist sympathies, which do not materially impinge upon the thesis of the lectures.
Slight demerit for author's anticapitalist sympathies, which do not materially impinge upon the thesis of the lectures.
July 27, 2011
In this book (originally a series of lectures given at the University of Virginia in the early 1930's) Mr. Nock defines the meaning of "intelligent," "formative knowledge," and "educated," explains the Great Tradition and why it disappeared, describes the revolutionary changes that occurred in the U.S. education system at the close of the 19th century, explains the three incorrect theories that the current system is wholly based upon, and describes why he doesn't think America will ever return to the Great Tradition and why that portends an eventual disaster.
If you consider yourself "educated" then don't read this book. You will find that you are not. It is a factual, not a sentimental book. You will be forced to see things as they are, not as you wish they were.
If you consider yourself "educated" then don't read this book. You will find that you are not. It is a factual, not a sentimental book. You will be forced to see things as they are, not as you wish they were.
February 26, 2025
Nock’s Three Major Criticisms of Educational Theory
Nock identifies three fundamental errors in the prevailing educational theory that shape modern schooling and democracy:
A False Idea of Equality
Education assumes all people are equal in ability and potential.
In reality, talents and intellectual capacities are not evenly distributed, making a one-size-fits-all system impractical.
True equality would recognize individual differences and cultivate excellence, rather than imposing a uniform standard that caters to the lowest common denominator. It leads to standardized education.
A False Idea of Democracy
Democracy is mistakenly equated with popular control over education rather than ensuring the best possible education.
Education becomes “common property”—not in a meaningful way, but in the sense that anything too advanced or specialized is excluded.
Instead of promoting excellence, the system lowers standards to accommodate the broadest number of students.
This leads to anti-intellectualism, where expertise is distrusted, and mass opinion dictates educational content.
An Overestimation of Literacy’s Role in Good Governance
Simply teaching people to read does not guarantee wisdom, critical thinking, or good judgment.
Nock critiques the low intellectual quality of mass media, arguing that most people read passively rather than thoughtfully.
A literate society is not necessarily an enlightened society—it may simply consume more superficial, low-quality information.
The Interconnection of These Errors
These three flawed assumptions reinforce each other:
A false sense of equality leads to a flawed idea of democracy, which then emphasizes literacy without depth.
This results in an education system that produces conformity rather than intellectual independence.
It is standardized, mass-oriented, and anti-elitist, discouraging any form of education that is not universally accessible.
Instead of fostering a well-educated citizenry, modern schooling mass-produces literate but uncritical individuals, easily influenced by shallow media and populist rhetoric.
Implications for Educational Reform
Education should focus on intellectual excellence, not just mass participation.
Democracy should not dictate curriculum—expertise should guide education rather than public sentiment.
Literacy must be accompanied by deep thinking and critical analysis, rather than passive consumption of information.
Nock ultimately argues that our educational system, shaped by these mistaken principles, fails to create truly independent and enlightened individuals—which, in turn, weakens democracy rather than strengthening it.
________________________________________________
Nock is explaining that traditionally, the educational system was structured around disciplinary learning — meaning the focus was on formative knowledge rather than instrumental knowledge.
Formative knowledge refers to subjects and studies that shape the intellect and character — like philosophy, history, literature, and mathematics. These weren’t about doing a particular job but about becoming a well-rounded, thinking individual.
Instrumental knowledge is practical — the kind of knowledge directly linked to a skill, trade, or profession. Nock says this was intentionally excluded from traditional curricula, as if it were a disease to be quarantined.
This connects back to democracy and equality because once the system adopted the idea that everyone should have access to education, the focus started moving away from purely formative studies. Why? Because formative education didn’t guarantee practical skills or jobs — and a "democratic" approach, in Nock’s view, meant tailoring education to what the public wanted, which often leaned toward useful, job-ready knowledge.
________________________________________________
The traditional view was that education = maturation of the mind.
But the modern system (in his eyes) shifted toward education = skill acquisition or job preparation, in order to accommodate a broader range of students.
So, for Nock, true education wasn’t about making people useful — it was about making them thoughtful. The classical curriculum was hard, yes, but that was the point — not everyone could handle it, but those who did would emerge with a deeply cultivated intellect.
________________________________________________
Traditionally, both the university and the undergraduate college placed the full responsibility for learning on the student. Scholars were focused on their own work — their lectures and guidance were almost incidental, and students were expected to keep up or fall behind on their own.
Education wasn’t about catering to the student’s interest or ensuring their success — it was about maintaining the Great Tradition. If a student wanted to learn, the tools were there, but the motivation had to come entirely from within.
The older model preserved a sense of intellectual integrity — there was no illusion that instructors were responsible for dragging students through the process. It was sink or swim, with the weight of education squarely on the student’s shoulders.
Modern university has fundamentally changed — not evolved — from its traditional form. He emphasizes three key differences:
1. Structure: The old faculties of Literature, Law, Theology, and Medicine have been replaced by a patchwork of departments and schools.
2. Intention: The university is no longer an association of scholars pursuing knowledge for its own sake but a collection of pedagogues (teachers) whose job is now to actively carry the burden of educating students — a responsibility once placed solely on the students themselves.
3. Function: The focus has moved away from “education” in the classical sense (which emphasized cultivating independent thought and intellectual growth) toward “training” — preparing students for specific jobs or vocations.
Nock identifies three fundamental errors in the prevailing educational theory that shape modern schooling and democracy:
A False Idea of Equality
Education assumes all people are equal in ability and potential.
In reality, talents and intellectual capacities are not evenly distributed, making a one-size-fits-all system impractical.
True equality would recognize individual differences and cultivate excellence, rather than imposing a uniform standard that caters to the lowest common denominator. It leads to standardized education.
A False Idea of Democracy
Democracy is mistakenly equated with popular control over education rather than ensuring the best possible education.
Education becomes “common property”—not in a meaningful way, but in the sense that anything too advanced or specialized is excluded.
Instead of promoting excellence, the system lowers standards to accommodate the broadest number of students.
This leads to anti-intellectualism, where expertise is distrusted, and mass opinion dictates educational content.
An Overestimation of Literacy’s Role in Good Governance
Simply teaching people to read does not guarantee wisdom, critical thinking, or good judgment.
Nock critiques the low intellectual quality of mass media, arguing that most people read passively rather than thoughtfully.
A literate society is not necessarily an enlightened society—it may simply consume more superficial, low-quality information.
The Interconnection of These Errors
These three flawed assumptions reinforce each other:
A false sense of equality leads to a flawed idea of democracy, which then emphasizes literacy without depth.
This results in an education system that produces conformity rather than intellectual independence.
It is standardized, mass-oriented, and anti-elitist, discouraging any form of education that is not universally accessible.
Instead of fostering a well-educated citizenry, modern schooling mass-produces literate but uncritical individuals, easily influenced by shallow media and populist rhetoric.
Implications for Educational Reform
Education should focus on intellectual excellence, not just mass participation.
Democracy should not dictate curriculum—expertise should guide education rather than public sentiment.
Literacy must be accompanied by deep thinking and critical analysis, rather than passive consumption of information.
Nock ultimately argues that our educational system, shaped by these mistaken principles, fails to create truly independent and enlightened individuals—which, in turn, weakens democracy rather than strengthening it.
________________________________________________
Nock is explaining that traditionally, the educational system was structured around disciplinary learning — meaning the focus was on formative knowledge rather than instrumental knowledge.
Formative knowledge refers to subjects and studies that shape the intellect and character — like philosophy, history, literature, and mathematics. These weren’t about doing a particular job but about becoming a well-rounded, thinking individual.
Instrumental knowledge is practical — the kind of knowledge directly linked to a skill, trade, or profession. Nock says this was intentionally excluded from traditional curricula, as if it were a disease to be quarantined.
This connects back to democracy and equality because once the system adopted the idea that everyone should have access to education, the focus started moving away from purely formative studies. Why? Because formative education didn’t guarantee practical skills or jobs — and a "democratic" approach, in Nock’s view, meant tailoring education to what the public wanted, which often leaned toward useful, job-ready knowledge.
________________________________________________
The traditional view was that education = maturation of the mind.
But the modern system (in his eyes) shifted toward education = skill acquisition or job preparation, in order to accommodate a broader range of students.
So, for Nock, true education wasn’t about making people useful — it was about making them thoughtful. The classical curriculum was hard, yes, but that was the point — not everyone could handle it, but those who did would emerge with a deeply cultivated intellect.
________________________________________________
Traditionally, both the university and the undergraduate college placed the full responsibility for learning on the student. Scholars were focused on their own work — their lectures and guidance were almost incidental, and students were expected to keep up or fall behind on their own.
Education wasn’t about catering to the student’s interest or ensuring their success — it was about maintaining the Great Tradition. If a student wanted to learn, the tools were there, but the motivation had to come entirely from within.
The older model preserved a sense of intellectual integrity — there was no illusion that instructors were responsible for dragging students through the process. It was sink or swim, with the weight of education squarely on the student’s shoulders.
Modern university has fundamentally changed — not evolved — from its traditional form. He emphasizes three key differences:
1. Structure: The old faculties of Literature, Law, Theology, and Medicine have been replaced by a patchwork of departments and schools.
2. Intention: The university is no longer an association of scholars pursuing knowledge for its own sake but a collection of pedagogues (teachers) whose job is now to actively carry the burden of educating students — a responsibility once placed solely on the students themselves.
3. Function: The focus has moved away from “education” in the classical sense (which emphasized cultivating independent thought and intellectual growth) toward “training” — preparing students for specific jobs or vocations.
January 29, 2019
Gold. We do not have a system of education in the United States. We have institutes of training. Bad theories of pseudo-egalitarianism, pseudo-democracy, and pseudo-education prevail. All we are left with is endless tinkering to refine the machine of pragmatism and training.
"Mr. Lang said that the type of education offered in our new million-dollar high schools is about one-twentieth as valuable. as the kind given in the traditional little red schoolhouse of a generation ago." pg. 19
"Its interpretation [of the 'sentiment which prompted our ancestors to determine the their children should have a better chance at the good life, the humane life, than circumstances had permitted themselves to have' pg 25] frequently betrays a vast ignorance of what the humane life really is, and of the discipline whereby alone one may make progress towards this life." pg. 26
"Its ministrations moved us to the construction, by no means deliberate but quite at haphazard, of an educational theory which may be decomposed into three basic ideas or principles. The first idea was that of equality; the second, that of democracy; and the third idea was that the one great assurance of good public order and honest government lay in a literate citizenry." pg. 27
"But we perceive at once the necessity of discriminating between a sound philosophical doctrine, such as the doctrine of equality is, and the popular formulation of that doctrine, which may be fantastically unsound." Pg. 29
"The doctrine of equality has regularly been degraded into a kind of charter for rabid self-assertion on the part of ignorance and vulgarity." Pg. 30
"Our system is based upon the assumption, popularly regarded as implicit in the doctrine of equality, that everybody is educable. ... Even our truant laws testify to it, for they are constructed with exclusive reference to school-age, not to school-ability. ... The philosophical doctrine of equality gives no more ground for the assumption that all men are educable than it does for the assumption that all men are six feet tall. We see at once, then, that it is not the philosophical doctrine of equality, but an utterly untenable popular perversion of it, that we find at the basis of our educational system." Pg. 31-32
"The iron force of circumstance has finally made us aware that it is not, never war, and never will be, those who vote that rule, but those who own; ... Republicanism does not, therefore, of itself even imply democracy." Pg 34-35
"The whole institutional life organized under the popular idea of democracy, then, must reflect this resentment. It must aim at no ideals above those of the average man; that is to say, it must regulate itself by the lowest common denominator of intelligence, taste and character in the society which it represents." pg. 39
"Bishop Butler made the acute observation that the majority of men are much more apt at passing things through their minds than they are at thinking about them." Pg 43
"For evidence of this one has but to look amour large literate population, to remark its intellectual interests, the general furniture of its mind, as these are revealed by what it reads; by the colossal, the unconscionable, volume of garbage annually shot upon the public from the presses of the country, largely in the form of newspapers and periodicals." pg 43
Pg 45
"The curricula of the primary and secondary schools and of the college should be fixed, invariable, the same for all participants. There should be no elective studies." pg 48
"The college, for example, did not reach back into the work of the secondary school to fill up any holes or take up any slack in the student's career there. If the student came to college unprepared in any particular, he was unprepared, and there was nothing to do about it but to remand him. No more did the college reach forward into the purview of the university or the technical school with any pre-vocational or pre-professional exercises." pg 49
"Mr. Lang said that the type of education offered in our new million-dollar high schools is about one-twentieth as valuable. as the kind given in the traditional little red schoolhouse of a generation ago." pg. 19
"Its interpretation [of the 'sentiment which prompted our ancestors to determine the their children should have a better chance at the good life, the humane life, than circumstances had permitted themselves to have' pg 25] frequently betrays a vast ignorance of what the humane life really is, and of the discipline whereby alone one may make progress towards this life." pg. 26
"Its ministrations moved us to the construction, by no means deliberate but quite at haphazard, of an educational theory which may be decomposed into three basic ideas or principles. The first idea was that of equality; the second, that of democracy; and the third idea was that the one great assurance of good public order and honest government lay in a literate citizenry." pg. 27
"But we perceive at once the necessity of discriminating between a sound philosophical doctrine, such as the doctrine of equality is, and the popular formulation of that doctrine, which may be fantastically unsound." Pg. 29
"The doctrine of equality has regularly been degraded into a kind of charter for rabid self-assertion on the part of ignorance and vulgarity." Pg. 30
"Our system is based upon the assumption, popularly regarded as implicit in the doctrine of equality, that everybody is educable. ... Even our truant laws testify to it, for they are constructed with exclusive reference to school-age, not to school-ability. ... The philosophical doctrine of equality gives no more ground for the assumption that all men are educable than it does for the assumption that all men are six feet tall. We see at once, then, that it is not the philosophical doctrine of equality, but an utterly untenable popular perversion of it, that we find at the basis of our educational system." Pg. 31-32
"The iron force of circumstance has finally made us aware that it is not, never war, and never will be, those who vote that rule, but those who own; ... Republicanism does not, therefore, of itself even imply democracy." Pg 34-35
"The whole institutional life organized under the popular idea of democracy, then, must reflect this resentment. It must aim at no ideals above those of the average man; that is to say, it must regulate itself by the lowest common denominator of intelligence, taste and character in the society which it represents." pg. 39
"Bishop Butler made the acute observation that the majority of men are much more apt at passing things through their minds than they are at thinking about them." Pg 43
"For evidence of this one has but to look amour large literate population, to remark its intellectual interests, the general furniture of its mind, as these are revealed by what it reads; by the colossal, the unconscionable, volume of garbage annually shot upon the public from the presses of the country, largely in the form of newspapers and periodicals." pg 43
Pg 45
"The curricula of the primary and secondary schools and of the college should be fixed, invariable, the same for all participants. There should be no elective studies." pg 48
"The college, for example, did not reach back into the work of the secondary school to fill up any holes or take up any slack in the student's career there. If the student came to college unprepared in any particular, he was unprepared, and there was nothing to do about it but to remand him. No more did the college reach forward into the purview of the university or the technical school with any pre-vocational or pre-professional exercises." pg 49
March 6, 2025
Wow, for being written in 1931 this still offers interesting insights and certainly resonates with much of my thinking of about the push and pull of education versus culture. For those short on time I especially recommend two chapters: Free Speech and Plain Language, and The Disadvantages of Being Educated.
First off, the difference between training and education: training to do something proficiently, perhaps even expertly (like mastering a skill like carpentry) is different from the process of educating oneself to look at the interaction and interconnectedness of everything in order to gain a wisdom about what is true progress and what is simply improvised expedience toward gratifying the trending impulses of the masses. Most all secondary education is now geared toward proficiency training to be an accepted part of the American paradigm of making money and enjoying the leisured life; thinking and deep questions are not held in high regard. Jefferson’s ideal for America was the careful balance between reflective thinking and practical and pragmatic solutions, not the grab-what-you can culture of economic affluence with its concomitant disregard for whatever behaviors that don’t bring instant or near-term gratification.
Secondly, educated persons will have to accept that the people they admire and count as influential may not hold much value or recognition from the masses. Elitism has become a dirty word, but since the time of Socrates and the Athenian schools, it has always been a select few who value and pursue knowledge for its own edification. There are fortunately a few people who successfully cross this barrier and have success on both fronts. A favorite of mine, Carl Sagan, is certainly the exception of being recognized by his peers and also loved by the public.
An interesting tidbit about Thomas Jefferson: when he campaigned for his second term, he refused to go out before the public in a “display of tawdry exhibitionism” and instead relied on educated voters to read his views in published essays and decide if they agreed or disagreed. He carried all but two states. Nowadays actual political discourse is unheard of; instead, millions of dollars are spent on campaigns that amount to a circus show of shouted slogans.
Some of the sobering realizations put me in a depressive funk, and unlike some upwardly mobile countries (especially in Asia) it seems America simply doesn’t have the kind of cultural foundation that values intellectual achievement. This also corresponds to an insightful book I recently read - Kurt Andersen’s Fantasyland – which documents the entire history of America’s anti-intellectual bias from the Salem Witch Trials to the present day.
If you’ve found this relatively obscure book by Nock and enjoyed it we’re singing in the same choir!
First off, the difference between training and education: training to do something proficiently, perhaps even expertly (like mastering a skill like carpentry) is different from the process of educating oneself to look at the interaction and interconnectedness of everything in order to gain a wisdom about what is true progress and what is simply improvised expedience toward gratifying the trending impulses of the masses. Most all secondary education is now geared toward proficiency training to be an accepted part of the American paradigm of making money and enjoying the leisured life; thinking and deep questions are not held in high regard. Jefferson’s ideal for America was the careful balance between reflective thinking and practical and pragmatic solutions, not the grab-what-you can culture of economic affluence with its concomitant disregard for whatever behaviors that don’t bring instant or near-term gratification.
Secondly, educated persons will have to accept that the people they admire and count as influential may not hold much value or recognition from the masses. Elitism has become a dirty word, but since the time of Socrates and the Athenian schools, it has always been a select few who value and pursue knowledge for its own edification. There are fortunately a few people who successfully cross this barrier and have success on both fronts. A favorite of mine, Carl Sagan, is certainly the exception of being recognized by his peers and also loved by the public.
An interesting tidbit about Thomas Jefferson: when he campaigned for his second term, he refused to go out before the public in a “display of tawdry exhibitionism” and instead relied on educated voters to read his views in published essays and decide if they agreed or disagreed. He carried all but two states. Nowadays actual political discourse is unheard of; instead, millions of dollars are spent on campaigns that amount to a circus show of shouted slogans.
Some of the sobering realizations put me in a depressive funk, and unlike some upwardly mobile countries (especially in Asia) it seems America simply doesn’t have the kind of cultural foundation that values intellectual achievement. This also corresponds to an insightful book I recently read - Kurt Andersen’s Fantasyland – which documents the entire history of America’s anti-intellectual bias from the Salem Witch Trials to the present day.
If you’ve found this relatively obscure book by Nock and enjoyed it we’re singing in the same choir!
June 28, 2025
Modern education mistakes the instructable for the educable, makes a mess and justifies more budget to waste with the masses. You'll hate bureaucrats even more after this one. This book will either turn you into an elitist (if you're self-taught) or will get on your nerves (if you depend on teachers to learn stuff). Great on its principles, unfortunately vague on what "The Great Tradition" is (university? The classics? Western thought? Christianity?).
One important complementary article is "Isaiah's Job", same author. Taught me to seek for the Remnant instead of speaking to the deaf ears of the masses (pérolas aos porcos).
One important complementary article is "Isaiah's Job", same author. Taught me to seek for the Remnant instead of speaking to the deaf ears of the masses (pérolas aos porcos).
December 7, 2018
Highly interesting book about the Great Tradition and the state of American Education as viewed in 1931 post John Dewey and like reformers. One can only imagine how Mr. Nock would have diagnosed the current State of Affairs today.
November 24, 2020
Hard-hitting food for thought. You may not agree with all of Nock's conclusions, but it's hard to argue with his observations about the fundamental assumptions underlying the American educational experiment. That it had already gone so wrong within the first 40 years since abandoning the Great Tradition as such, it would seem hard to believe that it lasted nearly a century further. This still feels like it could have been written yesterday (originally delivered in 1931). Now, where do we go from here? Nock encourages us to look at the underlying theories of education. The way back to a classical model can't ultimately succeed without an honest look at the conflicting ideals in our current system, but it's a good and exciting reminder of the goal and the potential for rediscovery.
June 22, 2014
This is a thought provoking book and I think Nock makes some genuinely good observations about the American education system, but I also think his conclusions are ultimately flawed.
There are two major points with which I agree. The first is that the education system is based on a false premise that everyone is equally adapted to a liberal arts education. We see a political push for "higher education for all" when that is not in the best interest of everyone, and universal standards like Common Core ignore individual differences. It is remarkable that Nock's insight remains so relevant eighty years later.
Second, he observes that this imposition of false equality results in a dumbing down of standards to meet the lowest common denominator. Schools do not teach what cannot be understood by all, and thus miss out on a great deal that is worth teaching.
All this is very true. Where I think Nock errs is in his belief that a liberal arts education is somehow more valuable and precious than vocational training. He quotes Jefferson as seeing that geniuses need to be separated from the "rubbish," meaning those ill adapted to Greek and Latin and philosophy. I also do not share his rather dim view of humanity that only a very small minority will ever be capable of critical thinking. While many may choose not to engage in such analysis, it does not mean they are not capable, or that they should be prevented from trying.
What worries me about Nock's ideas is the way he seems to classify people in to two groups, the educable and the ineducable, in other words, the smart and the dumb. Aside from the fact that terms like "smart" have no real objective meaning (a mechanic and a philosopher are smart in different ways,) this kind of dualistic thinking has been responsible for a great many social evils, from Plato's totalitarian conception of caste society in Republic, to the eugenics movement, to the persistent progressive idea that the masses must be ruled by their intellectual betters.
The important thing is not to separate the geniuses from the rubbish, but to let all individuals pursue their interests and those types of education and training for which they are most well adapted. To begin with, I think a destigmatization of vocational schooling would go a long way towards improving American education, as would more competition and choice among elementary and high schools. It is nonsense to cram all students of the same age in the same geographic region into one school with one curriculum, with no respect for their individual aptitudes or interests.
The Theory of Education in the United States will make you challenge some of your deeply held assumptions about education, which is always a good thing, but I think Nock's conclusions leave much to be desired.
There are two major points with which I agree. The first is that the education system is based on a false premise that everyone is equally adapted to a liberal arts education. We see a political push for "higher education for all" when that is not in the best interest of everyone, and universal standards like Common Core ignore individual differences. It is remarkable that Nock's insight remains so relevant eighty years later.
Second, he observes that this imposition of false equality results in a dumbing down of standards to meet the lowest common denominator. Schools do not teach what cannot be understood by all, and thus miss out on a great deal that is worth teaching.
All this is very true. Where I think Nock errs is in his belief that a liberal arts education is somehow more valuable and precious than vocational training. He quotes Jefferson as seeing that geniuses need to be separated from the "rubbish," meaning those ill adapted to Greek and Latin and philosophy. I also do not share his rather dim view of humanity that only a very small minority will ever be capable of critical thinking. While many may choose not to engage in such analysis, it does not mean they are not capable, or that they should be prevented from trying.
What worries me about Nock's ideas is the way he seems to classify people in to two groups, the educable and the ineducable, in other words, the smart and the dumb. Aside from the fact that terms like "smart" have no real objective meaning (a mechanic and a philosopher are smart in different ways,) this kind of dualistic thinking has been responsible for a great many social evils, from Plato's totalitarian conception of caste society in Republic, to the eugenics movement, to the persistent progressive idea that the masses must be ruled by their intellectual betters.
The important thing is not to separate the geniuses from the rubbish, but to let all individuals pursue their interests and those types of education and training for which they are most well adapted. To begin with, I think a destigmatization of vocational schooling would go a long way towards improving American education, as would more competition and choice among elementary and high schools. It is nonsense to cram all students of the same age in the same geographic region into one school with one curriculum, with no respect for their individual aptitudes or interests.
The Theory of Education in the United States will make you challenge some of your deeply held assumptions about education, which is always a good thing, but I think Nock's conclusions leave much to be desired.
April 27, 2012
Honestly, I think Nock gets as much wrong as he gets right in this book. He is a hell of a writer, and a really good social critic, but I think Nock's eagerness to criticize (and his pessimistic worldview) leads him into some errors. Nock's basic thesis is that then-current educational trends led to an educational egalitarianism that we are all capable of receiving education. Nock's preferred view is that those capable of it should receive (classical) education, and that the masses should receive something more like training (preparation for the regular tasks of life, including career training, etc).
The problem is that this is pretty much what education was doing at the time Nock wrote. Administrative progressivism ("Education and the Cult of Efficiency") had really won the day, and much of it was based on a tracking system where individuals were tracked based on ability - some to a college prep type of education, and others to a "life adjustment" form of training. Deweyan progressivism really did not have the effect on education Nock and others thought it did (and this is the general consensus among education historians today).
Nock did, however, foresee that the belief that all are capable of education would tend toward a watering down of what we meant by education (as it is very true that most students today receive training, that we call education, in order that we can say that all students are being educated). Nock also foresaw the damage "education as credential seeking" would do to water down schooling even further (and, to my eyes, the damages wrought by compulsory education laws).
The problem is that this is pretty much what education was doing at the time Nock wrote. Administrative progressivism ("Education and the Cult of Efficiency") had really won the day, and much of it was based on a tracking system where individuals were tracked based on ability - some to a college prep type of education, and others to a "life adjustment" form of training. Deweyan progressivism really did not have the effect on education Nock and others thought it did (and this is the general consensus among education historians today).
Nock did, however, foresee that the belief that all are capable of education would tend toward a watering down of what we meant by education (as it is very true that most students today receive training, that we call education, in order that we can say that all students are being educated). Nock also foresaw the damage "education as credential seeking" would do to water down schooling even further (and, to my eyes, the damages wrought by compulsory education laws).
August 2, 2016
This is the fourth book by AJ Nock I have read in the last few months, so I am not surprised by what he had to say about the way people are schooled in America. He did not consider what our schools do, from primary through university level, to be "educating" at all, but rather instructing or training with a thin veneer of liberal arts thrown in to masquerade as "education." In short, I would not imagine this book is popular among members of the NEA. I would be surprised to find it on the shelves of any public school in America. It is based on a series of lectures Nock gave in 1931 and references the then recent stock market crash and the ensuing economic woes. The educational system in America had radically changed within the past 35 years and Nock compares the new equality-driven democratic system (everybody deserves an education) to the previous system based on a formative course in Greek, Latin, and mathematics. Fascinating reading and amazingly relevant to our current state of affairs.
October 8, 2013
The Big Business of America is in institutionalized learning, heavily subsidized by partisan government interests. It is no mystery that even close to a hundred years ago the education v.s. the indoctrination of Americans was quickly running in separate paths.
"Institutional Warehousing With Occurrence of Accidental Learning ", (my interpretation), is the checklist template Nock has warned about all these years ago.
His critique of today's broken system also includes an austere remedy that will never be considered since billions and billions are at stake.
The fact that most academics and students occupying seats in such institutions don't belong there at all is glaringly obvious when reviewing their output.
Providing the bulk of our population an informative education that will enable them to pursue trades and careers is essential and what Nock proposes.
But, that also provides for a level of independent thinking that is not admissible to a Progressive bureaucrat.
Nock was ahead of his time because today he'd be castigated as a fanatic.
"Institutional Warehousing With Occurrence of Accidental Learning ", (my interpretation), is the checklist template Nock has warned about all these years ago.
His critique of today's broken system also includes an austere remedy that will never be considered since billions and billions are at stake.
The fact that most academics and students occupying seats in such institutions don't belong there at all is glaringly obvious when reviewing their output.
Providing the bulk of our population an informative education that will enable them to pursue trades and careers is essential and what Nock proposes.
But, that also provides for a level of independent thinking that is not admissible to a Progressive bureaucrat.
Nock was ahead of his time because today he'd be castigated as a fanatic.
August 25, 2012
This short book is based on a series of lectures delivered in 1931 but remains topical today as little has changed in the fundamental philosophy of western education systems. I do not share Nock's pessimism about the intellectual capacities of the majority of people, but merely placing people before books is not the same as getting them to read them. I do think many people might become educated if they chose to be, but the choice must be actively made by the individual and forcing them to sit through many years of classes will not necessarily inspire them to take an interest in educational matters.
April 15, 2015
The more volumes on education I read, the more I come to feel that this is one of the best. Nock lays out his argument and expounds on each point, almost like he's writing an epistle. The core idea -- that not every citizen is "educable" -- should be self-evident but is still regarded as revolutionary (or, in some circles, blasphemous). Nock's lectures (for that is the origin of the book) contain the most concise, readable explanation for why, nearly 100 years on, we should still be clamoring to roll back the educational reforms that swept the nation at the turn of the previous century.
May 1, 2016
A book of lecture collections from Nock regarding the decline of education in America. Nock outline the difference between education and academia. Not everyone is educatable but that's what the government thinks which led to the degeneracy of the universities in the United States (and other countries) right after the great depression. There needs to be elitism rather than simple literacy, a good education will naturally lead to vocation, rather than useless degrees.
However, I do think there needs to be more foundations than the traditional 4 (Literature, Medicine, Law and Theology).
However, I do think there needs to be more foundations than the traditional 4 (Literature, Medicine, Law and Theology).
June 19, 2012
A highly readable, controversial indictment of modern college education in America. If only Nock saw what college has become today! Most readers will balk at Nock's notion that most Americans--most people--are not 'educable', but those familiar with our education system will at least resonate with the notion that we spend far too much time and energy on students who, at a minimum, do not wish to be educated!
Read
August 3, 2011If you are an educator, this is a must read!
January 20, 2023
Nock’s warnings about the growing deterioration of the American education system were prescient as he foresaw the future failure and malaise of our schools.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews