The Crisis Of Liberal Education Analysis

In The Crisis of Liberal Education, author Allan Bloom explains his disdain for the liberal education system in America, states areas of the system that are lacking, and presents his ideas regarding how liberal education should change. He credits the flaws he finds in the system to two events in particular. Bloom states that the launching of the artificial earth satellite, Sputnik, by the Russians in 1957 and campus revolts (which I assume to include the Free Speech Movement of 1964) drastically changed academics in America. Bloom believes that these events contributed to the decline of liberal education.

After feeling outdone and surpassed in terms of scientific capability by the Soviet Union after the launch of Sputnik in 1957, the

U.S. boosted efforts to educate citizens. The U.S. believed that science and other educational programs needed to be better reinforced in the minds of students. Therefore, an academic transformation occurred in the institutions throughout the United States. Standardized tests and other objective means of determining academic ability became more important. Attending a university became indispensable to attaining a respectable profession. America began to take academics much more seriously than they had previously, and academic competitions soon emerged.
Bloom then goes on to discuss the changes that occurred within the universities themselves. Bloom seems to believe that educating students on how to contemplate and think critically and conceptually was abandoned; educators began to simply train students. “This change has been consecrated by a transformation of name: what was once the university has become the multiversity.”1 Bloom states that multiversity does not discuss how to solve the world’s most serious problems (how to life a good life, and the nature of justice). The idea of a multiversity is acceptable for underachievers, but not for leaders and revolutionaries. The leaders are not satisfied with this way of education; if they truly want to learn, they must educate themselves.
Bloom then provides more details regarding the campus riots that he mentions at the start of his essay. According to him, the riots were caused because student revolutionaries were angered by the indifference of the education system regarding their dissatisfaction with the state of liberal education at the time. The revolutionaries called for smaller classes, more freedom, and no moral responsibilities. Bloom makes it clear that these changes are not necessarily the correct ones, and that they will most likely not provide a long-time solution. The problem with liberal education is much more deep-seated than that. Bloom also says that such rioting and unrest would not have occurred at an institution where philosophy and theology are highly valued in the curriculum.
Next, Bloom introduces an interesting point.

He states that educational institutions demand a high level of skill, but they do so because of reasons that contradict liberal education itself. The United States commends those who achieve academic greatness but do so so not to be outdone, instead of for the benefit of its students. Bloom delves into the outlooks and conventions of the students themselves. He describes them as persons who are carefree, willing, and gullible. They live comfortably and do not appreciate all that it takes to attain and maintain a comfortable living style. Students are eager to drop everything if a seemingly better opportunity (probably where more money will be made) arises. The success of the economy during the time that this essay was written gave the students that Bloom refers to confidence that they will easily be able to find a job. These students are only influenced by their peers and the media, not by church, their parents, or

school.
Liberal education only scratches the surface of all the skills that these students need. It gives them the basic knowledge, but it is not applicable to real-life situations. Therefore, the students have the knowledge, but it is arbitrary to them, as they are unsure how to use it. Students are taught math, but they use it as a skill that is only used upon certain special occasions, not a tool to be used to achieve greater understanding. It seems that Bloom’s largest problem with liberal education is that there is no longer cohesiveness between the courses that students take. There is no reflection to the ways all of the seemingly random classes that students take relate to or complement each other, probably because they don’t. Bloom admits that taking classes in several different concentrations for the first two years helps students decide which they like best, ultimately helping them decide on a major. However, these classes present them with useless facts that they will most likely be forgotten and in no way help the student to think about the key concepts of his or her concentration. “…in order to admit all these specialties into the curriculum and give them equal status as they demand, all sense of unity and hierarchy has had to be abandoned.” 2
It becomes clear to the reader by reading this essay that Bloom favors theology and philosophy. It also becomes clear that the author favors sciences over the arts. This conclusion can be drawn when Bloom says that the reason humanities have declined is because science has declined, and the arts are rooted in science. Bloom brings up many arguments about science and its effect on the transformation of American liberal education. Bloom argues that the changes that occurred to the way that science was taught have caused a rift in the university. Natural sciences separated from philosophy and adapted a more logical process. Following this model, sciences and humanities began to distance themselves from each other. The humanities wanted to separate themselves from scientific reasoning, but end up severing a vital relationship, as humanities are based in nature. Bloom explains his disappointment in what science has become. He says that science used to lead to the consideration of the most complex ideas, but eventually stopped. Bloom says this about the rift between sciences and humanities within the university: “It is the real source of the crisis of liberal education…” 3
Many professors do not feel that the separation between science and humanities is important because they are so convinced that their field is important as it, without the inclusion of other subject matters.

These professors are often researchers but not inventors. They build on the findings of others, fail to think critically, and never think to ask their own questions.4 The main problem that Bloom has with what liberal education has evolved into is that the many classes students are required to take are not beneficial to them at all. Students are forced to take classes that they may gain knowledge from, or they may not. Even if they do gain the knowledge, it may not be retained, or it may be a dormant skill that the student rarely uses. When students are forced to take so many classes and retain so much information that does not play into or is not related to in any way to each other, how are they to be expected to remember it all? I would take a miracle, especially over the course of four years. “We are faced with the choice between a careful knowledge of one [field] or a superficial acquaintance with many.”5 As previously stated, knowledge is taught to students, but if they are not taught how to use it, it is useless to

them.
For most of the arguments that Bloom presents in this essay he provides implications or solutions to the problems he finds with the liberal education system. In order to change the liberal education system gradually Bloom has several suggestions. Bloom believes that moral education should have a place in the student’s curriculum. Professors should teach within their area of specialty, but in a way that it relates back to general issues that must be contemplated. Reform should begin with small groups of who have interests in common should collaborate so that their classes each contribute to the learning of the students. Bloom also states that students should be provided with a variety of choices for training, combining solidity, has philosophic openness, and avoids lack of unity.6 This solution is puzzling because of the fact that Blooms previously states that students should not be trained but instead taught.
Bloom mentions the fact that many universities (especially Ivy League) seem to think that if more freedom and free time is provided to the student, the student will gain a better understanding of what he or she is learning. Bloom agrees that time should be left aside in general studies, but only if this time is spent wisely. Some institutions allow students to spend their time how they please, and construct their own academic program. Ultimately Bloom believes that more freedom is not the solution to the crisis of liberal education. The implications of allowing more freedom into the liberal education system include a renouncement of teaching the students and avoidance in determining what the student should really be learning.
It is the responsibility of educational institutions to make sure that the courses being offered, along with the changes being made, include various forms of teaching concepts, styles, and analysis. It is also imperative that the contain substance. Bloom is ultimately convinced that there are only a few measures that need to be taken in order to transform the liberal education system. Firstly, science must be returned to its previous form, therefore once again taking on aspects of philosophy, so that natural science and philosophy could once again be somewhat dependent on one another. Since the humanities are rooted in science, the improvement of the sciences will eventually improve humanities as well. Secondly, the universities of America need to ensure that for all fields of study that they require a student to take, each must encourage the student to not only learn the skill they teach, but to think about it critically and conceptually. All of the classes must also be willing to recognize the importance of relating classes to each other so that they are easier for the student to process and remember. Classes should each teach topics that relate to and compliment for the benefit of the students.
In his essay, Bloom discusses the changes that occurred within the educational system due to the launching of Sputnik and the protests orchestrated by students in the mid-1960s. These factor changed the way education was thought out and carried about completely. Millions were and continue to be affected by this change. Currently, at most college-level institutions, students are required to take a variety of courses during their first two years of enrollment. They are told the reasoning behind this is to help them be sure that their chosen concentration is the right one for them. This process is called liberal education. Students are exposed to varied areas of study to get a taste of what it would be like to have a career in each. Some find this process find this process useful, while some find it arbitrary. The author finds the transformation of liberal education to be a disservice to the very students it is meant to benefit. Bloom stresses throughout his essay the immense importance of critical and conceptual thinking within liberal education. He also stresses the important role that philosophy plays in natural science, and the important role that science plays in humanities.
Allan Bloom believes that the two great events that changed liberal education forever did not change it for the better. However, he does believe that liberal education can be returned to its former state, or even a better one. In order to best benefit their students, institutions must rethink and reform the liberal education system. Students must be taught to think about things fully and completely so that they can produce their own intelligent ideas. Students should rely on the examples of critical thinkers before them and model themselves after such individuals. If they are taught to realize and achieve their full potential, there would be no limit to the amount of things America’s students could accomplish.