Western Civilizations in Past Educational Systems

Colin Moore

HUMN 220

Blog 1

1/23/13

Western Civilizations in Past Educational Systems

            The reading that I chose to analyze was “The Rise and Fall of the Western Civilization Course” by Gilbert Allardyce. This article was mainly about how the history of western civilization was taught in American schools. The author chose to show the history of the western civilizations class by showing how it was utilized in a number of prestigious schools such as Harvard and Colombia. One thing that I found to be interesting was that European history was taught very often throughout the United States. This was shown when the author wrote “While national history thus came to dominate schools on the Continent, however, European history in America commonly continued to be presented en bloc. As a result, scholars have noted, more European history was taught in the United States than in Europe itself.” (Allardyce, 699.) This quote points out that America had adopted a sort of Western way of thinking. This is true because of how often people in school were taught about the vastly different histories of the different European countries. European history was taught in schools because Americans adapted a similar style of thinking as the Europeans, and knowledge of their history and different cultures could be immensely beneficial the country as a whole.

            There were a few more parts in this article that I found to be quite interesting. One part is a statement that was said towards the beginning of the article about changing curriculums. The quote is, “There is an old saw to the effect that changing a curriculum is like trying to move a graveyard. On its own, the general education movement was not up to the task. Specialization was the prevailing tide in higher education; general education merely slackened the flow.” (Allardyce, 698.)  I tend to agree with this statement, that changing a curriculum is like moving a graveyard. This just means that it can be very hard to change a curriculum. A curriculum, much like a graveyard, has its roots planted underneath the ground, and tearing anything up and moving it would be difficult. Another thing that I found interesting was the part where Allardyce talked about the Harvard president and the creation of the elective system. This is shown when Allardyce wrote, “Historians have explained how this “’academic revolution’” between 1870 and 1910 established the reign of the graduate school, professional disciplines, and research. Generally associated with President Charles William Eliot of Harvard, the elective system was truly the guillotine of this revolutionary process, dismembering the curriculum in the name of the equality of courses and the liberty of students to choose among them.” (Allardyce, 697.) What this quote means is that the author believes that electives ruined an academic revolution because students were not required to learn the entire same core requirements anymore, such as western civilizations used to be. I personally disagree with the author on this point, in that I believe electives can be beneficial for the educational system. I believe that electives can lead towards more specialization for students. With electives students learn exactly what they need to learn. This article made some interesting points about western civilizations classes. I’m convinced that these types of classes are important for people to take and learn from.

           wes