Rhetoric In The Classical Sense.

[Urbs Aedificator]

Ave. I guess its an 'occupational hazard' for those of us who delve into classical history, but I have for quite a while felt that Rhetoric in the classical sense should be taught as mandatory in schools. Likely at the beginning of high school and extended as an option onto post secondary education.

As a matter of fact the whole concept of education(although it is various) from a Greek/Roman perspective should(IMHO) be taught with EMPHASIS, not to the exclusion of the todays curriculum, but as a solid foundation from which to grow.

Any thoughts?

Alex

Edited July 12, 2007 by Urbs Aedificator

[ASCLEPIADES]

Ave. I guess its an 'occupational hazard' for those of us who delve into classical history, but I have for quite a while felt that Rhetoric in the classical sense should be taught as mandatory in schools. Likely at the beginning of high school and extended as an option onto post secondary education.

As a matter of fact the whole concept of education(although it is various) from a Greek/Roman perspective should(IMHO) be taught with EMPHASIS, not to the exclusion of the todays curriculum, but as a solid foundation from which to grow.

Any thoughts?

Alex

Salve, UA! I totally support your Rhetoric's (not rhetorical) proposal. I would want to hear other opinions about other aspects of the whole concept of Greek/Roman education.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Rhetoric is an important topic, but a school day is limited, and there are more important things to teach (in my opinion). I'd rather people learn statistics and economics since these are far more essential to modern life than rhetoric.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Rhetoric is an important topic, but a school day is limited, and there are more important things to teach (in my opinion). I'd rather people learn statistics and economics since these are far more essential to modern life than rhetoric.

 

I agree, the idea of teaching Rhetoric is all well and good but just how far in life is Rhetoric going to get you as oppose to the more important subjects.

 

I think it should be an option available to students but should not be mandatory, like MPC says, there's more important and beneficial things to be taught in the classroom in the limited time that's available.

[Primus Pilus]

Rhetoric (or speech, public speaking, media relations, and other derivatives thereof) are already available in various forms and classes at various institutions around the world. It's a specialty today just as it was in the ancient world (not every Roman studied such things, and in fact very few were probably exposed to such an education at all). Rhetoric and oratory were generally considered advanced studies, though they did begin about the time a modern student would be entering "high" or "secondary" school.

 

Considering the lifespan comparison of the average person today, beginning such an education at University (roughly 18 to 20 years) really isn't all that different from a 16 year old Roman beginning an education in rhetoric and oration.

[Urbs Aedificator]

Double post, sorry.

Edited July 12, 2007 by Urbs Aedificator

[Urbs Aedificator]

Yes, you are right the school day is limited, and many folks feel that there are more important topics to learn. Of course when we talk of subjects such as statistics and economics MPC, are we not looking at things only from a perspective that we feel is essential. We all accept, I presume, that we cannot go back to Classical times, nor might many want to(having to give up the modern conveniences we have accrued). Yet, limiting our view to what is essential to modern life, or what society insinuates is essential to modern life, really does not give us a 'leg up' on living a better life. Which I think many feel is the point of this whole game.

I ask though, what does Rhetoric give us in our search for a better life for ourselves , our loved ones, and I may postulate our society in general? Firstly, I am tempted to say that Rhetoric will take you as far in life as you let it GPM.

Secondly Rhetoric, or public speaking(but not media relations et al)are indeed available, and at present as PP straightforwardly pointed out, only as a speciaity. Those who are interested soon realize that effective speaking confers to it's owner many benefits that can be applied to almost any academic subject taught today. Yes, a broad statement, but let us ask what is the seed of Rhetoric that makes it so effective in its proscribed environment and potentially also effective in any other subject it is applied to? Why it's the ability to orginize. Organize one's thoughts one's actions, one's life, if so inclined.

Can you imagine if, made mandatory(unlike in Classical times) to every school child, what a force to contend with that said child might become?! Certainly, in the very least, it would beat having to listen to the dribble that passes for intelligent conversation, heck just plain conversation one hears in schools, work, on the subway, the kid who is serving you fries...'yo! wazzup? that's sooo sick!, boy it musta been filth kickin' it in the times those dudes wore togas...

...or I could be wrong.

Not really trying to sell a point here, just trying to view things from a neglected perspective.

Ave.

Alex

[Moonlapse]

School is the system's method of creating employees and consumers (as opposed to entrepreneurs and independent producers) The schools we have are the schools that are required. Most 'classical' means of learning have been removed to make way for a scientifically designed method and environment. You can't measure rhetoric with standardized tests. If you want a return to classical subjects and methods, you're not going to get it in the Department of Education, unless perhaps in selective AP classes and in very watered down form. To recite one of my favorite quotes again:

 

We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.

- Woodrow Wilson

 

The economy we have right now is solidly based on this. If you give every child a liberal education, you lose efficiency and the ability to centrally manage a large group of people. If you keep digging into this you will ultimately have to decide whether you think the current order should be maintained and your level of comfort within it, or whether it should be completely dismantled and be forced to confront considerable inconveniences.

 

This sort of thing will truly only cause problems, are they the kind of problems you want?

[Urbs Aedificator]

Well put Moonlapse. That's a political hot potatoe that I will reserve for another forum I belong to. But I catch your drift.

Politics and Religion tend to divide people. I prefer to discuss things that unite them...that's why I like the UNRV forums.

Cheers.

Alex.

[caldrail]

teach rhetoric in schools? Brilliant. Now the kids can talk back to their teachers and avoid punishment by way of clever arguement...

[Urbs Aedificator]

teach rhetoric in schools? Brilliant. Now the kids can talk back to their teachers and avoid punishment by way of clever arguement...

LOL Good one. Makes one wonder if that ever happened in ancient Greece or Rome, and how the teachers reacted.

Cheers.

Alex

[M. Porcius Cato]

Makes one wonder if that ever happened in ancient Greece or Rome, and how the teachers reacted.

Ancient teachers used to beat their students for even tiny offenses. Practicing one's rhetorical skills on one's pedagogue would have been posed a physical risk.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Makes one wonder if that ever happened in ancient Greece or Rome, and how the teachers reacted.

Ancient teachers used to beat their students for even tiny offenses. Practicing one's rhetorical skills on one's pedagogue would have been posed a physical risk.

XX Century teachers used to beat their students for even tiny offenses up to WWII and even after, and I'm pretty sure that still happens in many places in our world.

[sonic]

I don't know what it's like in other parts of the world, but the system used in England is getting more and more bogged-down with what the 'government' thinks should be taught.

 

We are now being told that we have to teach, amongst others (and in no particular order); 'Home Economics' (cooking etc), English, Maths, the Sciences (sometimes as one subject, sometimes split into Biology, Chemistry and Physics), History, Geography, Religious Studies, Personal Social and Health Education (everything from how to wash your hands to how not to catch Syphilis), Art, 'Resistant Materials' (Woodwork and Metalwork), Drama, Dance and Physical Education. PE, we are now told, should have at least 5 hours a week on the timetable. Unfortunately, there are only 25 hours a week to teach in. There are now also proposals to include/expand Citizenship and 'Business' to fit into the schedule. In Citizenship, kids are supposed to learn about their rights and duties as citizens (voting, abiding by the law, etc. etc) and in 'Business' (or whatever it will be called) they are to learn how to manage their finances (mainly because British people are vastly in debt with credit cards, bank loans etc).

 

It seems that every time another fault is found with society, teachers are given a new subject and told to jam it into an ever-more stuffed timetable and so cure the ills of our present society.

 

Let's be honest, 'Rhetoric' is taught to a minor degree in a subject called ASDAN, but this is only taught to the 'lesser-ability' students who haven't got the ability to 'write' and/or behave properly in a classroom - although ASDAN appears to be being expanded as it is actually useful in a lot of ways.

 

However, how could we manage to cram yet another subject into our already overstretched timetables, and who would teach it? The main problem with all of these 'new' subjects is that people do not recognise that in England teachers do not have the time to teach them, they are not trained to teach them, and are not given the money necessary to pay for the resources needed. This is why Science teachers could end up teaching 'rhetoric' and schools go ever further into debt attempting to pay for it.

 

It's too easy to say that we simply need to train 'rhetoric' teacher, but how many people would actually want to teach it?? As somebody has already pointed out, today's youngsters are already 'cheeky' enough, without being taught to respond in a reasoned and erudite manner!

 

Thank the Lord I am out of it!!

 

An ex teacher

[Ursus]

I don't need no rhetoric, dude. I'm, like, a good talker already. And stuff.

 

..

 

I'm all for putting a little more of the classics back in the curriculum, and weeding out some of the worse examples of touchy-feely politically correct drivel.

 

However, I think most people are ultimately suited to more vocational training. I try to think of my high school classmates, most of whom were rustic yokels, eloquently reciting Homer and Cicero in the original languages, and I crack up laughing. The finer points of such a cultured educational system would be lost to children of NASCAR and professional wrestling.

 

I'm not sure how you Canadians do it, but most American secondary schools after the 8th grade allow a student to pick either a vocational track (which lets them get a job immediately after high school, or attend further technical training), or an academic preparation course which prepares them for University. The academic track is usually populated by the .. smarter types ... if you know what I mean, and these could benefit from a more classics centered education. But someone wanting to be a mechanic or brick layer doesn't need rhetoric.

 

The Romans themselves reserved that particular type of education for the upper classes, as they would need to know Ciceronian Latin to debate in the halls of the Senate.