Education Teaching Books

Loads of best practises that is based on solid research. Quite a few eye openers as well. There are already enough of the quick do and don'ts books, this book finally gives me solid base I was looking for. And I totally disagree with others that the book is boring. I really enjoy reading it. It is not hard to read even for foreigners (like me).

This book was great! My classmates and I used it to develop a usability evauluation. Great updates!

This book should be required reading for anyone undertaking a training initiative or considering e-learning. The field today is filled with "rapid development" tools that provide quick translation of slide shows, and "rich media" courses. All of these tools are designed to be easy to use and rely on generic, uninspired templates.

There is much more to designing e-Learning than simply getting your content into an electronic format and making it available online. This book explains it all, and is considered a bible by everyone I've worked with in the field.

I operate an educational multimedia publishing group serving the public healthcare sector. I found this book to be eminently approachable and extremely well organized. I was able to read through it over a weekend. One can get to the key concepts (the HOW) of each chapter without being forced to muddle through the supporting theory. That being said, all major concepts are well supported by research and cognitive theory for those who wish to understand the WHY. It is important to note that the authors' focus is mostly on the corporate training world and adult learners needing to develop fundamental skills. Not until chapter 14 do they discuss approaches to more advanced learners. Overall, I highly recommend this book. It should be on the shelf of everyone who is creating e-learning for adult learners.

I was looking for a book that could provide tips on making online education more engaging. This book was rated highly by other reviewers so I pulled out my credit card and bought it. But I have to agree with another recent review: it's just too boring! The book is written in a style that is very formal and isn't very engaging. I'm a little disappointed that a book about instruction techniques isn't better written and a setting a good example of it's content.

I have always thought that there is a piece of ADHD in everyone. Some people has a bigger piece, some people has a tiny piece. How can anyone be so "perfect"? My children are not "scientifically" diagnosed to be ADHD. But there are times when they can be showing bits of "symtoms" of ADHD.
I was in tears when I read about what happened to young Jonathan and young David. It must have been hard for them and their parents.
Everyone should read this book.
Parts of this book are going to help you with raising your own child since, like I said, everyone has bits of ADHD, and you just never know when anything in this book would come in handy.
Plus, we should also try to UNDERSTAND why some other children are doing what they have done. They are not ill and they are not stupid. It is just that they cannot walk within the lines like everyone else. Yet they CAN still learn and bloom, only that, just like the title of the book, they need to do it "outside the lines".

Anybody can use the great tips and techniques in this book from students who procrastinate on studying to people with ADD or ADHD that have a hard time focusing on studying and preparing for projects and tests. I highly recommend this to anyone who has difficulty with school regardless if you have ADD or ADHD or not.

I purchased this book because I have ADHD, I am in college and I am struggling some with test performance and grades (GPA is 3.65 but I want to increase it). I found *nothing* about what I was searching for in this book, and here's why.

For one, the first part "deviant minds", the one telling the school story of the two authors, is no use whatsoever, because it constantly blames the system (which doesn't work for ADHDers, true, but DOES work for 85% of people --- and they omit reporting this essential data). On top of it, the two stories are about how the entire world should be preoccupied with accommodating LD/ADHD kids as if nothing else mattered. Furthermore, the whole take on non-LD/ADHD people's feelings and behaviours (especially teachers) is *very* confrontational and displays an overall (and well-known) lack of empathy that many ADHDers have toward whoever doesn't have either LD or ADHD. As I also am a significant other of people with ADHD (my mom, a coworker, some other friends), I found it *appalling* to see how the strains that ADHD puts on relationships are completely overlooked when not entirely blamed on others, abuse included.

A second reason I don't suggest this book is, it's full of useless advices, such as "when the teacher says the word example it means he is about to give you an example" (I have ADHD, I'm not *dumb*!!!), "make summaries" (I know I'm supposed to summarize but the ADHD-related difficulties with summarizing are *precisely* linked to the fact that we see ALL the endless ways to do it... how about providing strategies to sort out which way works best in a specific contest???), "structure your answer" (yeah, how clever! That's what I've been told since grammar school... care to provide a template or at least explain *how* to do it??). When conflicting advices are given (like in the case of multiple ways of taking notes), there is no explanation on how to figure out which way might work best for the individual and/or the specific situation. They only say "do what's best for you", again, yeah right I've been trying to figure that one out for my whole life -- care to help some for 15 dollars?

A third reason I found this book useless is that it gives you no strategy for memorization... so if you are in medical school (like me), law school, are becoming a pharmacist or a vet or simply are facing an exam that isn't some dumb English Literature or Writing class, you can safely skip this book and buy *any* other available one.

Finally, having ADHD is about overcoming one's shortcomings, whereas the authors try to teach you how to cheat the system. In the specific, they teach you several tricks to pretend that you've studied something well enough that you manage to get higher grades. However, what I was trying to do was, getting higher grades as a consequence of having *really* learnt something!!!

In other words, unless all you are a victim and all you're interested into is cheating the system and never *really* face the challenges that comes with ADHD, run away, it's not for you.

I had leafed through this book one day in the library and it looked interesting. So, I bought one and I keep it with me always! I use it like a reference book. I found the chapters on reading and writing for people with learning disabilities the best. Once I started using the techniques, I saved my semester and my Grad School career! I was on academic probation and had to pass all classes (I'd gotten an "F") before. When I came back to try Grad school again, I had two "D's" at mid terms my first semester back! I read the book from cover to cover and kept it with me after that. I went from two "D's", a "B", and an "A" to two "A's", a "A-", and a "B" over the next six weeks. By the time finals came I was in the clear. The next semester I got straight "A's" for the first time in my life! All using techniques from this book! You have to get it. If you have ADHD or another learning disability like I do, it will help for sure!

I haven't read this book, I was thinking about buying it and read the excerpt online. It might be great, but I wouldn't want my kid reading any book with the "F" word on every page. I think it's unfortunate. Just my opinion.

This book has some very good real life situations that preservice teachers can learn from. It is easy to read and will not bore you to death. My teacher required it for our Teaching Elementary Science course and I really like this book. This is something I will be keeping as a reference.

This is an easy reader. I have never read a textbook that is actually fun to read. The personal experiences shared by the textbook author are a great way to present the material.

About a year ago, I used this text in a course I taught as an adjunct. Science Stories was one of the four texts that were required for a "learning-communities" style course that combined the course content for math, science, and technology methods. Since closing the course in May, 2007 (I taught two sections of the science component), I have found myself returning to this one text again and again. Supervisors of student teachers, preservice teachers, and naturalist-educators could use this book as a reference for "science process skills," for questioning levels, and for ideas on "home-made" laboratory equipment constructed from everyday items. What it does not provide are many "cookbook" guides for how to run specific activities. Readers will have to look elsewhere for direct-instruction models and for protocols for guided laboratory activities.

This book was not what I thought it was going to be. The book revolved around experiences the teacher had had in the classroom, but gave no guidance on how to relate key concepts to the classroom. I too believe in discovery based learning, but some guidance is necessary for students to learn. This book does not do an effective job in preparing future science teachers to be effective in the classroom.

Science Stoies by Janice Koch is a great book for teaching preservice elementary school teachers how to teach science. The author is a master of questioning and walks the reader through the process of asking questions in order to build on prior knowledge and concepts. The author also reminds the reader of the content we all need to know to help the younger generation discover truths about the natural world. This is a true constructivist approach to science education.

Great textbook guys! I like this one because it gives the reader exciting ways to teach Social Studies. The book shows the reader how to make Social Studies interesting and not cause students to become bored with the subject. This book will also help me in my future classroom!:) The last thing I would want is for a student to become bored with any subject.

I recommend this book to anyone interested in receiving a multititude of practical ideas for the classroom, supported by the latest research in the field of ESL.

Gibbons does a good job of balancing theory and practice in this book. Although some of the practice can be applied at middle school level, the book is most useful to elemntary teachers. The 6 period day common at the secondary level does not lend itself to the integrated curriculum that Gibbons recommends. This is still a good read for ESL teachers of all levels. It is a book an elementary ESL teacher or ESL coordinator should read in order to set up a good ESL program at the elementary school level.

The book I recived was brand new as stated by Amazon. I also recieved it in a timely manor.

This book was recommended to me as a good resource for preparing for National Board Certification in the area of English as a New Language. I found the book to be easy to follow and informative. It provides suggested activities that are applicable to various grades at the elementary level. My students enjoyed several lessons based on suggestions from this book.

[...]

If you are a teacher, you know there are a lot of crappy teacher "resources" out there. This book is NOT one of them. I bought it as a requirement for a class and devoured it in a couple of days.
As other reviewers have stated, it's great because it talks about the theories behind learning a second language through content in the classroom, but it doesn't go so in-depth as to bore you to death. Gibbons also has a great balance between talking about the theories behind her work and giving teachers concrete examples and activities to try out on our own. If you follow the SIOP method (or are trying to) this book supports much of the content of the SIOP book, but in more accessible language and organization.
This book covers teaching speaking, writing, reading, and listening to ESL students, in homogeneous groups as well as in an integrated classrooms of native and non-native speakers. It also made me aware of aspects of my teaching that can either facilitate language learning or create a roadblock for ESL students.
Overall, great book!

This Audio CD is a useful supplement to the Ordinary Parent's Guide. You may be suprised to find you actually don't know how to pronounce many of the letters of the alphabet correctly. It is very important you teach them correctly to your children, especially if they have any speech difficulties. For example, 'D' is not pronounced 'duh'. Teach your child the wrong pronunciation and they may wind up having some difficulty sounding out words. The CD will model for you the difference between the voiced and unvoiced consonants, which will be invaluable. There are also some fun song tracks, and the complete Consonant Rhyme, which is learned in the book. You can just turn this on, and Presto! It isn't meant to listened to beginning to end, however.

Parents must be part of the education of their children early on if children are going to learn to read and enjoy it.This book gives some great tips on exactly that. Also a must-have for parents are two lovely pieces of children's literature which children really enjoy. The 10-page scripted guide allows parents to start teaching reading skills early on:Life's Little Lessons: An Inch-By-Inch Tale of Success
and The Big Squeal: A Wild, True, and Twisted Tail.

So far, my kids are learning and reviewing the letter sounds and are enjoying the lessons. The rhymes are helpful. It is basic and easy to teach, and foundational for reading.

We are just beginning learning the sounds of letters, and what great focus this book gives you as the teacher. It guides you throughout the studies and combines the lessons for review. I have been pleasantly surprised about how thorough this book is.

After completing 89 lessons in this book, my daughter and I are calling it quits. We've worked on it on and off for over a year (she's 5 now), and for the sake of preserving a love of reading, have decided to shelve it. This book has been helpful in a number of ways; it is great for giving a parent the sense that they can indeed teach their own children, that reading is easy, and laying out a path for doing so. I have found it useful as a reference book, i.e. to show me what to introduce, remind me what the actual "rules" are, and give me direction for our lessons. However, there have been some significant problems.

1) The layout of the pages is daunting for a child. There are lots of words, no pictures, nothing to visually set apart the words that the child reads except that they're a bit larger. It seems overwhelming and very un-child-friendly.

2) The practice stories often make no sense, and fail to capture my daughter's interest at all. An example from today: "The black snake did wish that he had a snack of mice. The snake did scan the grass to prey on mice. The grey mice sat on the rock and ate nuts. The snake came to the rock. Hey! The mice fled. They hid in holes. The snake will have no snack this day." Awkward wording, nothing particularly interesting about that, no pictures. The optional follow-up activity is to illustrate this story and label the items.

3) The practice sentences are way too long, and overwhelm new readers. For example, the child has just been introduced to the "fl" blend (lesson 50), and reads the sentence, "Ducks in flocks flit and flap on the flat pond." This sentence is too long, has onomotopeic words with which they may not be familiar (flit), and makes them use the new rule 4 times!! Very frustrating for a child struggling to learn a new rule. This was one of 6 new blends introduced in this one lesson.

4) Exceptions are often introduced before rules. For example, today we learned that the vowel pair "ea" can sometimes make the long-a sound, as in great, break, steak. Okay, so my daughter goes to read "please", and says, "place". Of course! She's never been taught that "ea" USUALLY says the long-E sound. The old "when two vowels go walking" would have been helpful to learn first, not later. Also, today she learned that "ey" can say the long-A sound. So "smiley" is smilay until a later lesson... you get the picture. This has come up more than once.

5) Very rigid rules, introduced in a logical, but not necessarily helpful, order. Much more actual reading could be possible much sooner if they'd go ahead and introduce some of the more helpful rules out of sequence.

6) It would be helpful to introduce a number of sight words much earlier. Kids learn sight words very quickly, and a few of them up front can make many more books accessible.

If your child is VERY motivated to learn to read, I do think that this book will work. My 3-year-old son has this drive, and the first few lessons (we skip the letter-learning part) have taught him the basics of CVC words. But he would learn that just as easily if I just stuck some magnets on a board. My daughter is very global in her thinking, and is more interested in the content of stories than in mastering reading technique, and this book sends her running for cover. Honestly, I dread it, too. Fortunately she is now at the point where she can read basic easy readers, so we're going to drop this book, use it as a reference tool only, and continue with McGuffey Readers, Bob books, and everything on the library's easy reader shelf. For my other 3 kiddos, I'll be investigating other options.

very informative, has alot of tips. A phenomenological approach to in-depth interviewing.

This book does a very nice job of outlining the interview process as well as all of the issues around informed consent. The book also is excellent with the whole issue of developing a profile for the person being interviewed. This was probably one of the finer elements of Seidman's effort.

I was disappointed with one thing. The reason I bought the book was that I was interested in reading more ideas on how to coalesce a number of interviews into a coherent whole. This was a weak area of the "Interviewing as Qualitative Research..." It was certainly addressed but Seidman's points related to this topic were not helpful. The book would, however, probably be helpful to someone that is just beginning to use interviews.

Overall, it is a good book. It was just weak in the main area where I was hoping to pick up some new ways to approach the data.

I was fortunate to take Irv's class at UMass. His book is the most comprehensive guide to interviewing, and I have used his method in my doctoral thesis and in multiple academic papers. Irv probably has exploitation issues with his method being used to collect consumer data, but the three-stage interview method is extremely effective in exploring consumption experiences.

For the novice interviewer, this is a very informative book. It is clear and precise and gives a decent history of interviewing and the ethics that go with the territory. Just remember that this is only one interviewing book. The author describes his method used at his university and acknowledges other methods. Over all very good. It helped me a great deal for my masters work.

Qualititative research is far more than asking a prescribed list of questions. However, the interview is key and core to learning what the researcher wants to know.

"Interviewing as Qualitative Research" by Irving Seidman is a concise but informative book explaining the whole process clearly. In fact, the strength of the book is not so much the content -- other books say the same things -- but the presentation. Seidman planned the book well, and subjected it to careful editing and organization.

Despite its short length, it is well-outlined, with a complete contents area, index, and eight-page reference section.

Chapters include (each has several subsections listed below):
* Why Interview?
* A Structure For In-Depth Phenomonologicsl Interviewing
* Proposing Research: From Mind To Paper To Action
* Establishing Access To, Making Contact With, And Selecting Participants
* Affirming Informed Consent
* Technique Isn't Everything, But It Is A Lot
* Interviewing As A Relationship
* Analyzing, Interpreting, And Sharing Interview Material

I fully recommend "Interviewing as Qualitative Research" by Irving Seidman.

Anthony Trendl

From a high school student's point of view, reading Dewey couldn't provide something else than hope for educational systems, most of which, despite the efforts of making a school a more living atmosphere, organizations still remain too mechanical in learning procedures and detached from social applications regarding the capabilities they serve.

Originally from Cameroon, I've had the opportunity to explore three educational systems from different cultural influence each. It was an advantage that surely opened my mind to different perspectives by interacting with different cultures in different social contexts, but especially carried me out to realize how the so called "education" - in general, but in high school in particular - shortly addresses fundamental needs as much individually as socialy, since people tend to ignore its essential functions or misunderstand the concepts it involves, precisely because their implications are so general that they shouldn't be analyzed in separated contexts, school and society, as far as they are, with respect, one a component of the other but the other being the expression of the first one in a long term.

By observing both components as a whole, Dewey proposes a model that doesn't necessarily apply to actual issues or give factual solutions, but at least redefines "education" by integrating inherent aspects to human nature in its double acception - as a group as much as an individual -, which reveals the values traditional education still mostly hides.

I delibarately took the initiative of question what high school didn't explained to me, and probably often forget to ask itself. In what ways education serves people in the aim of blooming personally and socially ? which role schools are therefore supposed to play and in which patterns ? The questions are so simple that the answers appear obvious. In fact, they should be when the problematic is carefully put. this is the reason most people can get it wrong and sometimes don't even try to question what is already established. Dewey was an excellent starting point for my research and I recommend it to EVERYONE, not especially those concerned with education because it shouldn't be a matter of a restricted segment of people. Education is everywhere. Sorry for my english :)

This great book contains two Dewey classics: (1) The School and Society; and, (2) The Child and the Curriculum. This text is like most Dewey works: concise and to the point. This text focuses on the effects and the power that teachers should have in affecting student lives. There is much discussion on Dewey's classic "educative" experiences and how education should be hands-on learning. Dewey also asserts that curriculum should emulate real life challenges and "occupations" of everyday life. Learning occurs in doing and not in repeating facts and figures on multiple-choice tests.

We wonder why the greatest young minds are thrown into math and science courses instead of being encouraged to explore the arts and music. This book continues to show why coursework should not be limited to multiple-choice, fill-in-the-blank, and other methods of factoid memorization but rather coursework should include the exploration of skill-sets and also how the curriculum should provide a catalyst for knowledge and skill exploration.

Like most Dewey books, this should be required reading for all education programs and for all educators. Considered by many to be the only true American philosopher, Dewey once again provides a clear look at why education in America is sub-par in quality and effectiveness.

Also recommended: "Experience and Education," by John Dewey.

No intellectual can afford to be unacquainted with the immortal John Dewey and his "experimental school." Who would dare impute the legendary researcher permanently linked with the doctrine of the irreproachable "progressivism?" Somebody has to. It has to be I.

Dewey's conception of the child as learner assumes that the green mind most effectively comes to knowledge by directing its own education through spontaneous curiosity stemming from nature study. This he then expects will blossom into a more expanded consideration of the various academic subjects. The role of the teacher lies mostly in facilitating transitions and answering the child's self-posed questions along the way. The problems in Dewey's model begin with his science fair-meets-museum-meets-playground-meets-lecture hall school design: the model is untested on any significant scale and the startup plus upkeep costs are prohibitively expensive. Classes are small and require several specialists and non-reusable materials. As if kids didn't have enough problems with basic skills and content already, Dewey would have them heavily involved in shop and home economics. Even more outrageous in Dewey's model is the premise that we ought not force students to study what they do not like. Their own intellectual prejudices reign supreme and by implication, teachers are discouraged from evaluating against solid standards. Experienced teachers know that kids can easily hide their shortcomings even when required to study their weak subjects, and that remediation is hard to implement before they slip further behind. Dewey's recommendation to cater so exclusively to the child's intrinsic likes is at best a risky gamble which exacerbates low performance in students too immature to understand the value of education. It's no small wonder why the public's perception of teacher authority has dropped even in good districts with approaches like this floating around schools of education administration.

"The School and Society," like many other off-the-wall manifestos of educational theory, denies well-understood behavioral science when it glosses over psychological patterns in man. It depicts formulaic teaching and learning as fundamentally faulty and generalized curricula as harmful to student individuality. Nothing could less representative of quality research conducted, particularly Project Follow Through: the great skeleton in the student-centered advocates' closet. I for one would like to see Dewey's updated plan for seamlessly moving kids who come into class with their "natural inquisitiveness" programmed by TV, rap music, and other mass media, into colonial American history, calculations of hyperbolic asymptotes, Tennessee Williams, and the "plus-que-parfait" tense. But of course, such leaps of interest are unnecessary if we utterly throw out the "old-fashioned" academic corpus along with the old-fashioned school system.

90% of students in high schools today report that they do NOT feel adequately challenged. Maybe the answer doesn't lie in yielding to children's lack of intellectual discipline but in tapping their potential to control that uninformed caprice. "The School and Society" relies upon the circular contradiction of allowing an uneducated mind educate the teacher on its own education. The apparent absurdity of it all leads me to conclude that sane people latch onto its ideals to maintain an escapist fantasy in light of dismally high drop-out rates, lowered standards, and social discord. But a radical solution is not necessarily synonymous with a good one.

Dewey, a profound contributor to the field of education, displays some of his beliefs of the best methods to teach children in The Child and the Curriculum. To begin Dewey's discussion, the child's world is examined. In this examining, a sense of how the child's world operates is formed. Children learn through the process of experiencing things, life. In this book Dewey, finds that the schools in which children are educated contradict their very learning style by nature. "The child's life is an integral, a total one," (p.183, 1902). The way the school disseminates the curriculum is not the most optimal method for students to learn.
A child's life collects all the experiences, thus the child learns. Dewey postulates a change in the formula for teaching children, the curriculum. Why change the curriculum? As Dewey states, children need to be intertwined in the process of doing. Children will learn by doing, making clothes to wear, furniture to sit on, and growing food to eat. The idea of the separate subject area is a key area Dewey analyzes because of how children learn. When a child wants to build a chair to sit on, they examine disciplines across the realm of mathematics, science, and language skills while building the chair. Instead of separating this activity into different disciplines, it is woven throughout the activity. Throughout this book, it is stated that their needs to be a link to what the child is learning and what the child sees as a benefit to themselves.
As an educator, it is important to be exposed to varying ideas as to how the school systems have functioned and are functioning today. There are ideas in this book that a pre-service or current educator should consider during their teaching career. Are Dewey's ideas relevant for today's society? I believe this is a question one has to answer for themselves, construct your own meaning.

This book gave me hope for those mired in the public school system. It brought to mind another teacher book with heart, The Tales of the Dolly Llama, by Guy Kuttner. These books are inspirational and provide the appropriate tonic for those tired out by the system.

I was very pleased with my book. It was in the exact shape as the site described it and it arrived right on time! Thanks Amazon

I thought this book was good. It gave me some good ideas to use in the classroom. I think teachers should always be looking for new ways to teach.

Ayers approach to teaching is holistic and densely worded. He is a true veteran of the academic trenches having taught for almost 40 years at every level from K to college. He shows the utmost respect and concern for his students. Inextricable from his profession and unshakable in his conviction about what is greatness in teaching.

I really appreciated this book. Ayers is very passionate about a teacher's responsibility to help their students become complete human beings. Reading this book, and Grant Wiggins Understanding by Design, in a graduate class renewed my passion for teaching, which is really a passion for learning. Education should be about the big questions of life, not just the details and basic skills that are tested and required by the state and federal government.

Ayers is committed to developing whole and complete human beings, not automatons.

My only issue is with his emphasis on social justice as the focus of education. While I agree that a concern for social justice will emerge in people who think for themselves, it seems as if his recommendations force this concern on kids a little too heavyhandedly. If we are to be independent, complete people, then naturally what concerns us will not always be the same. Nevertheless, his emphasis is better than many who want us to just teach kids to read words and add and subtract, but don't really care if they can think for themselves.

On a side note, while I am disgusted by Mr. Ayers' past and his continued lack of repentence, I don't believe that it invalidates his philosophy of education.

Professor Kronman's book fills a lamentable gap in the literature pertaining to higher education, to the extent that most of what is written on higher education today is rather empty. This is the kind of book that a thoughtful person, having finished college, would come across and after having read it would realize that they were utterly misguided in their undergraduate caree. That being said, I feel the book should be required reading for anyone considering graduate school regardless of the field of study. His analysis of the "modern research ideal" seems to me right on. I would, however, agree with some previous reviewers that the book could have been shorter, and at times I found myself painfully aware that he was making a point he had aready sufficiently made. Nonetheless, the final chapter is quite profound and alone worth the cost of the book.

Yet, as a side note I find it striking that no mention of St. John's College in Sante Fe and Anapolis was made in the book. The "great books" programs at Yale, Columbia, etc simply cannot begin to compare with that of St. John's College. This omission is difficult to reconcile considering that the author sees the "great books" tradition and its secular humanism as the best way out of the current education crisis, and no other college or university better represents secular humanism than St. John's.

This is an important and carefully thought-out book. It's not for the faint of heart, or for anyone looking for a quick, punchy exposé of the current college scene. Rather, it is a deeply reflective and philosophical exploration of the differences in the intellectual objects of the sciences (both social and hard) and of the humanities. By appropriating the "research ideal" of the sciences, one that makes knowledge instrumental to a measurable goal, the humanities have lost sight of their traditional and more important aims, ones that are intrinsic rather than instrumental, that involve learning for its own sake and that bring meaning to life. The substitution of cultural relativism (called here "political correctness") for the pursuit of truth is a second siren's song that has distracted the humanities from its honorable mission. Both these points are important and well made. The book reads like a man's intellectual life's work. His heart is in it.

Kronman's study, however, is limited by the narrowness with which he defines the humanities. A law professor and Philosophy BA from WIlliams College, he seems chiefly to be talking about his own undergraduate major, Philosophy (see the appendix where he offers a sample curriculum), which has as one of its clear aims the understanding of "what living is for." That formulation of the central question of the humanities -- and it repeats throughout the book until it becomes almost grating -- is finally a limited (and I might add instrumental) one, that applies less to those branches of the humanities that encompass the arts than it does to Philosophy (or Theology). Much study within the humanities, rather than asking and answering quasi-ecclesiastical questions, offers the pure pleasure of satisfying intellectual curiosity, preserving culture, or simply engaging individual creativity. These also very important functions fall outside of Kronman's analysis, which is therefore not as comprehensive as it might be.

The narrowing of the humanities to the navel-gazing suggested by the book's subtitle "Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life" is thus unfortunate. The humanities (and even Kronman's analysis of them) are larger than this question implies. That might sound funny since what larger question is there than "What is living for"? But since it is a question so large as finally to be unanswerable -- and not finally the only concern of the humanities or only the concern of the humanities -- Kronman risks making a serious inquiry feel trivial.

I will get to the point: this writer needs an editor. The flood of words that make the same point over and over should have been halted by someone who recognizes when ego overwhelms good sense. There is much in this book to like and appreciate, but approximately 3x too many words expressing it.

Review:

Kronman is an intensely literate & learned Yale law professor (who also has a philosophy degree); he's also a political liberal (who worked for the SDS in the sixties & who currently supports Obama). This work, however, is a work of cultural conservatism.

Few will argue with Kronman's critique of higher learning. Both cultural progressives & cultural conservatives in the humanities will concede that college & university culture has one goal in mind: to train young minds to think professionally--that is to master a set of competencies (lexical & methodological norms) that will allow them to succeed in their chosen fields. That sounds rational enough, but the problem with this is that the professionalization of the humanities has also meant the mechanization of the humanities into a set of procedural norms that are no longer spiritually nourishing.

Kronman, who has also written a book about Max Weber, argues that the university's current predicament is the result of a long process of secularization. Kronman claims that there is a resurgent need for spirituality at the present time & that the humanities once again need to provide not just professional but spiritual guidance.

Kronman is not suggesting a return to any specific religion, what he is suggesting is a return to basic questions & concerns ( ie what is the meaning of life ?, what is the best way to live?) that he (somewhat arbitrarily) calls "spiritual" into the matrix of higher learning. This is his suggested cure not just for what ails higher learning, but for what ails humanity.

A return to basic questions & concerns sounds like a fine idea, but Kronman opens himself up to a number of problems when he equates globalization with westernization & a return to basic questions with a return to the canonical texts of western civilization (Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Mill). Kronman is not exactly dismissive of multiculturalism for he believes that students should learn about other cultures, but he believes that ones primary loyalty should be to one's home culture. In other words, Kronman believes that students will not find fulfillment in "superficial multiculturalism" but by immersing themselves in strictly western ways of being/knowing/valuing/believing.

Kronman obviously means well, but he simply doesn't account for the fact that the modern classroom is full of students & teachers with roots in many different cultures & traditions. To be fair to Kronman, he does respect other cultures & traditions, and he thinks that we need to learn about them, but what he fails to acknowledge is the possibility that we may learn something from them as well. As smart as he is, Kronman's anglocentric bias prevents him from seeing the world (or the classroom) as it is: a multicultural contact zone. And he fails to see that contact with cultures & histories & traditions other than western ones does not entail a loss to the existing tradition but an addition to it.

I think Kronman, and those cultural conservatives like him, believe that their way of life, the western way of life, is threatened by multiculturalism & globalization. So Kronman reacts by writing a book that suggests we institutionally defend the west against encroachments from the nonwestern world. But the best of what has been thought in the west is not in any danger when we amend or compare & contrast those thoughts with the best that has been thought outside of the west. In fact, studying other traditions simply adds to the number of ways we can ask & answer the basic questions that concern all of humanity (and not just that portion of it that we call western).

The best possible future will be fashioned not by those who formulate east/west or west/other relations as a contest for superiority between separate worlds, but by those who have the imagination to build upon the best of what has been thought regardless of that thoughts national or hemispheric origin.

Many cultural progressives & conservatives agree that the idea of the university is in trouble. Kronman's book is valuable for diagnosing what ails the modern university and the modern world, but his prescription is overly conservative, short-sighted, and does not engage the imagination in the way that a much more comprehensive and much more far-sighted (and much less anglocentric) set of higher learning reforms would.

Editorial:

I think the idea of a return to basic questions & concerns is a good idea, but I think that the problem with education today is even more basic than that. Kronman is a lawyer & an academic who is enlivened by argument & thus he no doubt enjoyed producing this text which is an intervention into a lively debate with a long history. The problem with Kronman is that he assumes that others will be enlivened by the same things that enliven him. The problem with academia is that too many academics assume that what interests them will & should interest 18-22 year olds. Very few academics really make an attempt to understand what interests & enlivens young people & why, and so many well-intentioned academics fail to recognize that the classroom is a stifling place for many creative-minded students who are not spiritually enlivened nor fulfilled by this or that academic's version of educational life. I'm guessing that a concentration on western texts will alienate more students than it will assist or spiritually nourish. I think I am safe in saying that most students who read Kant do not find themselves to be having anything like a religious experience while doing so. What makes most people feel spiritually enlivened, I'm guessing, are things like love & hope & possibility, and not Plato & Kant & Mill.

Academics will better serve their students when they better understand student needs. And the quickest way to do this is to pay attention to what they spend their time doing: constructing & editing their MySpace & Facebook pages. MySpace or Facebook might seem like a foreign & irrelevant universe to academics but if they take the time to understand why these sites are so appealing to students they might better understand their students. MySpace & Facebook allow students a rare opportunity to express themselves; and to connect with distant and not so distant others; and they provide a unique way for students to produce & manage their private & social selves & worlds. If academics understood this then they might find better ways to understand & connect with students and, more generally, understand how contemporary individuals cope with contemporary realities. Discussions of common fears, hopes, & desires as well as discussions of contemporary ways of expressing & coping with common fears, hopes, & desires might prove more interesting & useful & satisfying than a seminar on The Republic, Critique of Pure Reason, or On Liberty (though these texts, of course, have their place as well). But if the university truly concentrated on basic real-world questions & how real people answered them then a university would cease to be a place that accredited people according to professional ability and instead a place that accredited people according to their value to each other and their community. And that, sadly, isn't a reality. The reality is that real life & real people simply do not get the respect that Plato & Kant & Mill do and that is why professors value & teach Plato & Kant & Mill and that students share not their own selves & thoughts but their critique of the great thinkers (whose realities & concerns may or may not coincide with their own). This overvaluing & overpraising classic texts & undervaluing & underpraising self can be dehumanizing. Status at the university level is conferred upon those who publish books & not upon those individuals who connect with students. The university used to attract an attractive type: the gentleman scholar with one foot in the library & one foot in the street. Nowadays most professors are seasoned professionals more attuned to the realities of their profession (which means the realities of publishing) than the realities of living & functioning in the world that most of us live & function in. To rehaul the university and make it a more inviting & enriching place to spend four or more years will take more than a return to basic questions, it will take a reconsideration of what it is we truly value about the humanities, how best to teach them, and what kind of people are best suited to take on this invaluable role.

Kronman points to a very real and important trend in modern higher education. He gives a very cogent half-diagnosis of the source as well - that of the urge within humanities disciplines to ape the research methods of the natural sciences and thus exclude any sort of prescriptive 'values' from the research paradigm. However, Kronman underplays an even more important part of the source of the problem - the fact that a socially all-pervasive 'free market' mentality subtley and overtly pushes all that cannot be assigned a quantified ('bottom line') demarcation to the periphery of what is viewed as important, and finally legitimate, in human life. This is much more broadly manifested than in academia (witness how completely political legitimacy and fund-raising totals are equated in the current election cycle) but it is certainly also manifest in the concerns toward which Kronman points. Interesting is the fact that just as many in the 'hard' sciences, confronting the connections between their research and such realities as our genetic future, global warming, radical consumption inequality between and within societies, our continuing addiction to war and militarism, and so on, are beginning to recognize that the 'value-free' research model has always been more ideal than real, the humanities folks now jump on the same paradigmatic bandwagon. Kronman puts his finger on a real issue, but his analysis is arguably more focused on a case in point symptom than on the real source of the problem itself.