[Paleopsych] Chronicle Colloquy: The Crisis in Liberal Education
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Fri Apr 1 14:56:53 UTC 2005
The Crisis in Liberal Education
The Chronicle: Colloquy Live Transcript
http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2005/03/liberal_ed/
[I had a question answered.]
Thursday, March 31, at 1 p.m., U.S. Eastern time
The topic
Do research universities relegate undergraduate education to the
margins? Last year Harvard University made headlines when it announced
a plan to change its core curriculum. This year the Association of
American Colleges and Universities has begun trying to spark
discussion of what a "liberal education" is across different types of
institutions.
Can such efforts succeed? Are faculty members at research universities
ever likely to be superior undergraduate instructors? Given the
increasing breadth and complexity of disciplinary knowledge, and the
splintering of disciplines into specialties, should undergraduate
education emphasize a common knowledge or a way of learning? How can
administrators, forced by economic realities to prize efficiency in
undergraduate education, deal with such questions? Do changes in the
nature of the university preclude substantial change?
» [43]Liberal Education on the Ropes (4/1/2005)
The guest
Stanley N. Katz, director of Princeton University's Center for Arts
and Cultural Policy Studies and president emeritus of the American
Council of Learned Societies, offers his views on this topic in an
essay in this week's Chronicle Review.
_________________________________________________________________
A transcript of the chat follows.
_________________________________________________________________
Malcolm Scully (Moderator):
Good Afternoon and welcome to our live discussion about the
health--or ill health--of liberal education at major research
universities. I'm Malcolm Scully, The Chronicle's editor at large, and
I'll be moderating. Our guest is Stanley N. Katz, director of
Princeton University's Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies and
president emeritus of the American Council of Learned Societies. In an
April 1 article in The Chronicle Review, he asked whether liberal
education can succeed in the modern research university and suggested
that incremental reforms like the ones proposed in recent years do not
go far enough to address the changing landscape of higher education.
Thank you for joining us, Professor Katz.
_________________________________________________________________
Stanley N. Katz:
I am looking forward to this Colloquy, but I am a little
apprehensive about it, never having done anything of this sort. So
please bear with me. Basically, however, I publish in the Chronicle
because I get such wonderful response from the paper, and this seems a
great enhancement to the feedback I usually get. The initial response
to my article on liberal education is that I am too pessimistic. I
would be delighted to be convinced that is true. I am aware that
people my age can become nostalgic, and as an historian I know the
false allure of arguments for golden ages in the past. But I have
thought a lot about liberal education, and it has been my primary
concern as an educator since I first began teaching as a graduate
student in 1957 -- nearly fifty years ago.
I mention in the article the fantasy of having a golden wand to change
undergraduate education as I would wish, and several people have asked
me what I would do. I want to answer that in a way that will frustrate
many of you, since my response is that what I would do would probably
be different in every research university (my chosen arena). I feel
strongly that there are no general institutional solutions to these
problems. The problems are general, but the solutions are necessarily
local, dependent upon the nature and place of the institution, its
history and mission, its particular student body, and so forth. I
think the challenge is for those of us who care deeply that something
beyond vocational and disciplinary education be part of undergraduate
(and especially underclass) experience feel empowered to work within
our institutions for workable, pragmatic reforms.
I certainly do not believe that there is a specifiable, limited body
of knowledge that must form the core of liberal education. But I do
think that some body of knowledge about Western culture is essential
in this country, that at least one other culture be attended to, and
that a small number of intensive explorations into large intellectual
problems (defined as problems, not disciplines) need to be part of the
process of underclass education.
Beyond that, I am very interested in your suggestions.
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Question from Carol Geary Schneider, AAC&U:
Two questions -
In one campus study (at a public university widely praised for its
general education program) over 50% of the faculty said that they
"frequently" talk to students about liberal education and its
importance. But only 12% of the first year students and 13% of the
seniors said that they frequently hear from the faculty about liberal
education. What advice would you give the faculty of that university?
Do you think liberal education can ever be a priority for students if
we discuss it mainly or exclusively in terms of general education?
Wouldn't it make more sense to tie the aims of liberal education
(inquiry and analysis, communication, civic and ethical
responsibility, integrative learning) directly to students' majors?
Stanley N. Katz:
Carol, I have a mini-lecture entitled "the department as the enemy
of education." Disciplinary departments can do an excellent job of
disciplinary training, but the reason why I am concerned with general
education is that if we do not empower students to learn generally,
they will never learn liberally. I think there is a tension between
general and departmental education. I think we need both. But if the
department dominates, as it now does, I do not see how we are going to
provide a significantly general education.
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Question from Maura, Public Research Intensive University:
Is the current fuzziness of the academy's definition of a liberal
education in someway linked with the increased emphasis on the
"commercialization" and "privitization" of the public university?
Stanley N. Katz:
Yes, I think so. This is something that both David Kirp and Derek
Bok have written about recently, and I am in general agreement that
the commercialization of the university has created both values and
institutional arrangements that run athwart liberal education. On the
other hand, commercialization does not make it impossible for faculty
to try to articulate what is going wrong, and to propose solutions to
revive or enhance liberal education. Jerry Graff always talks about
"teaching the conflicts," and that is not a bad strategy here. If
faculty can point out what they think the contradictions and tensions
created for liberal education by commercialization are, that may be
one of the ways in which we can begin to address the problem
meaningfully. I think the burden is on those faculty who care to carry
the battle for liberal education forward.
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Question from Robert Benedetti:
In years past the hallmark of a liberal education was sufficient
breath to appreciate a wide range of possible experiences and to
treasure learning for its own sake, much as Henry Adams might have
done. Is the foundation or justification for a liberal education
undergoing a shift away from definitions which value the development
of the individual self to definitions which focus on the making of
democratic citizens? In other words, is the new standard for a liberal
education closer to one that would satisfy Cicero than Henry Adams? Is
the liberally educated person today more likely to be engaged in the
public square than to be swept up by an aesthetic or spiritual
epiphany?
Robert Benedetti
Executive Director
Jacoby Center
Universtiy of the Pacific
Stanley N. Katz:
An interesting question. I don't see the contradiction, though. I
think that at least from the beginning of the twentieth century U.S.
higher education has been committed to the creation of a democratic
citizenry. Certainly the World War I emphasis on general education at
Columbia and elsewhere was at least partly inspired by explicit
democratic imperatives. And of course Dewey always insisted upon the
link between education and democracy (at all levels of education). But
the sort of values-oriented version of liberal education (call it
Adamsish if you like) should enhance the democratic version. After
all, there is no inherent conflict between democracy and meritocratic
elitism, and I believe that liberal eduation should form the basis for
both.
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Question from Dee Abrahamse, California State University, Long Beach:
Why does the discussion of liberal education, like so many issues,
focus on the dichotomy between major research universities and small
liberal arts colleges? The largest number of students will graduate
from comprehensive universities, and it is here that the focus of the
future of the liberal arts will succeed or fail. Will these
universities adopt research models with over-specialized curriculum,
or will they become national leaders in championing new models of
liberal education for undergraduates?
Stanley N. Katz:
This is an important question, and a number of respondents have
asked related questions. My article focuses on research universities
only because I am a fish that swims in that particular pond. But I
know that there are other fish and other ponds, and they are equally
important. But I know a lot less about them, and do not want to
pretend more than I actually know.
My strong impression is that liberal education is alive and well in
the four year liberal arts colleges, although it is clear that they
have a multiplicity of different approaches. I believe that the most
selective of the colleges have the easiest time in being
self-determining as to their curricula, and therefore as to the extent
to which they can explore different strategies for achieving liberal
arts education. Wonderful work is being done here.
But I think the less selective colleges have a big problem with
vocationalism, since job training is what parents (and students) want,
and since a diploma from a lesser known college may not be perceived
as being as intrinsically valuable as one from the best known and most
selective colleges. Ernie Boyer pointed this out some time ago.
Ernie was very enthusiastic about the general or comprehensive
universities. I have done a little work with a couple of networks of
these institutions, and from that experience I know that many of them
are seriously committed to liberal education (as well as to vocational
and disciplinary approaches). I think in some ways they may be doing
better work than the research universities, in part because faculty
disciplinary professionalism is a less dominant influence on faculty
behavior and administration response.
I think we need a lot more empirical information to be sure.
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Question from Richard Guarasci,President , Wagner College:
Given the impressive list of curricular innovations, such as
learning communities experiential and service learning as well as many
new pedagogical classroom strategies, are large universities
monitoring the newest and successful practices at the smaller liberal
arts colleges where curricular effeciency and substantive learning are
prized? Are the different sectors talking with and learning from each
other?
Stanley N. Katz:
I do not really know the answer, but I suspect that to ask this
question is to suggest that they are not. That would be my guess. I
think you point to something important in higher education, and that
is what I take to be an increasing fragmentation of the different
levels of higher education with a consequent difficulty of
communicating across the levels -- much less moving across. It would
be worth a serious study, but my hunch is that we as faculty are now
even more compartmentalized in particular types of educational
structures than we were a generation ago. More important, it is
currently so hard to import new curricular strategies into any large
institution that even better ideas might not solve the problem. Of
course, if there are presidents like you who care, that would make a
decisive difference on their campuses!
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Question from Jack Meacham, University at Buffalo, SUNY:
Stanley Katz raises the question of whether research universities
can purport to offer undergraduates a liberal education. I would
rephrase the question to ask whether ANY college or university can
purport to offer undergraduates a liberal education. Katz concerns
himself primarily with how liberal education has been defined. My
concern is primarily with whether we will be able to find any
qualified professors to provide the liberal education curriculum,
regardless of how defined, to today's students. Our nation's research
universities have largely abandoned their commitment to liberal
education and now train doctoral students--and the coming generations
of assistant professors--only narrowly within sub-disciplines. These
newer, younger generations of professors have had no exposure to a
liberal education in their own education. They have no conception of
what a liberal education might entail, of how to construct and
maintain a liberal education curriculum, or of how to engage their
students as Thomas Kuhn did so well for Stanley Katz. The transmission
of the vision and reality of liberal education from professor to
student, who then becomes a professor, has been broken. How can we
restart this cycle? If our nation's four-year liberal-arts colleges
truly wish to offer their students a liberal education, they must join
together and insist to the research universities that they will no
longer hire new doctorates who are narrowly trained and poorly
educated. We must work together to transform the graduate programs at
our nation's research universities so that those who aspire to teach
will themselves have been the beneficiaries of a liberal education. My
question: Is Princeton University graduating any doctorates who are
truly prepared to provide undergraduates with a liberal education? If
not, what can Princeton University do to strengthen its doctoral
training programs?
Stanley N. Katz:
A fair question. I said in an earlier response that one of the
answers has to be revamped doctoral education, one that both includes
a serious commitment to training for teaching and a commitment to
taking a generous ("liberal"?) view of graduate disciplinary training.
One of our problems has been excessively specialized and narrow
training and dissertation topics. But, as you suggest, it is a vicious
cycle that we are in. I think that many institutions, especially
liberal arts colleges (where many research u. PhD students go)are
insisting more on teaching experience, curricular imagination, and
breadth of view. We in the research universities need that pressure --
if faculty know they need to train their students differently to get
them jobs, I think they will begin to do it. But it is slow. This is
another issue, but I think we also need educational leaders to lead on
this subject -- and speak out on the sorts of teachers we need to be
training in the best universities. Where is Larry Summers when we need
him?
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Question from Raymond Rodrigues, Skidmore:
Could part of our difficulty in trying to determine how a liberal
education would be achieved lie in our perceiving "general education"
or "the core" or any other appropriate term as a foundation, a
beginning? What if we were to attempt to conceive a liberal education
as the result of an undergraduate education rather than the foundation
for one? Then we would assess whether students had acquired a liberal
education at the end of their four (or six or ten) years. Few faculty
own general education, but all are committed to their disciplines.
Wouldn't viewing a liberal education as the sum total of one's
education do more to involve the disciplines, even granting the focus
upon research in one's field?
Stanley N. Katz:
I understand, and what you are suggesting is enormously important
if we are to take outcome assessment for undergraduate education
seriously. In some sense, of course, all four years count. Agreed. But
I confess that I am focused on the first two years, give or take,
because I suspect that from the point of view of cognitive development
what we do early on makes a decisive difference to longer term
outcomes. But I am sypathetic to efforts to liberalize the last two
years, especially with capstone seminars and the like. This needs more
attention.
_________________________________________________________________
Question from Frank Forman, U.S. Department of Education:
I very much appreciate your making the distinction between content
and cognitive process. I am very much a process man myself. I have
asked countless adults to recall the quadratic formula they supposedly
learned in the ninth grade. Almost no one can. The same forgetting is
almost as true of other subjects. So why go to school beyond the
eighth grade? Process is answer: you learn how to think. Alas, this is
almost impossible to measure, so school reform continues to emphasize
stuffing more content into kids heads. Let me ask you what a nearly
pure process education would be like. I'm thinking of an
eight-semester critical thinking curriculum. You can't get a
semester's course in medicine, but if you did, students would learn
about the *process* of diagnosing failure in a complex system. A
semester's course in law would be about the process of making fine
distinctions (legal vs. illegal). Economics is about keeping cost and
choice uppermost in mind. Engineering is about making do with rules of
thumb. Marxism is about group struggle. Add or substitute your own.
Archeology uses everything. In fact, life uses everything. How does
this sequence sound to you as part of a liberal education?
(Disclaimer: I'm not speaking for the U.S. Dept. of Education.)
Stanley N. Katz:
I am a process guy, and I am in substantial agreement. But I think
there is a nexus between process and content. It is not so obvious
with the quadratic equation (I think I still remember!), but it is
certainly true in much or most of science, social science and
humanities. Process is what helps us learn about content, and we do
internalize, criticize and reuse content. I think the dialectic
between process and content is what forms the core of liberal
education. I take it that this is what Lee Shulman and Howard Gardner
are talking about when they speak of the importance of content
knowledge in cognition.
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Question from Naomi F. Collins, Consultant:
How can the concept and content of liberal education be expanded
to incorporate a global perspective? That is, how might liberal arts
fields incorporate a broader vision; and how mightliberal arts methods
and approaches be "used" to provide a broader perspective on the
impact of globalization (that that provided by business, market, and
economic approaches and forces)?
Stanley N. Katz:
Well, Naomi, I would not privilege "globalization" anymore than I
would privilege "diversity," although I would think of diversity as a
value and globalization as a social process (that needs to be studied
and understood). I cannot imagine that a rich portfolio of general
education courses would not contain a great deal of material on
globalization, starting with approaches to global history, and coming
up to present developments.
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Question from Karen Winkler:
If simply reforming the undergraduate curriculum will no longer
provide quality undergraduate education in the modern research
university, where would you start to make changes?
Stanley N. Katz:
Nasty question, Karen. In my dream world I would of course create
"Liberal U.," where everything would work according to my principles
and ideas. But that is not going to happen. I am an incrementalist. I
think on most campuses it will be the actions of small numbers of
faculty who create courses or small curricular structures to embody
the ideas of liberal and general education who will make the
difference. And I am committed to the notion that we need to reimagine
graduate doctoral education significantly in order to recruit and
train the sorts of PhDs who will understand and commit to general
education in their teaching careers. We have, of course, a chicken and
egg problem here, but a prestigious university with a few departments
committed to this sort of program could get away with it -- and they
could place their students. This is incrementalist, but it would be a
good place to start.
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Question from Cyrus Veeser, Bentley College:
Dr. Katz identifies two developments affecting undergraduate
education--structural changes in research universities, and the
explosion of knowledge in science, social science, and humanities over
the past century. His article is pessimistic about the ability of
universities to "recenter" undergrad education given the "breadth and
complexity of the intellectual content students now confront." Is that
endgame? Or does he have some hope that an "essential core of
knowledge" relevant to students in the early 21st century could be
devised?
Stanley N. Katz:
It surely is not the endgame. I am not THAT pessimistic! But I do
think we need some new strategies for breaking out of the current
dilemma. I think that many of them have already been developed in
smaller institutions, especially four year colleges. We need to think
which strategies make sense for particular institutions, and how to
institutionalize them. We have adopted useful new strategies recently,
the freshman seminar's recent popularity being a good example -- but
we have not tied the institutional innovation to pedagogical content
innovation. I think that is the frontier to which we have to address
ourselves now.
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Question from Michael Davis, Illinois Institute of Technology:
There is justified concern that undergraduate education tends to
be too narrow, too dominated by "the major". The way to resolve that
problem is simply to limit the number of courses that can be taken in
any one department or that a department can require of its majors (or
both). Why assume that, in addition, there is a need for a set
curriculum for all students? "Liberal education" seems to be a sort of
non-major major. What evidence is there that such requirements
actually achieve anything, much less that they achieve what they
purportedly aim at? Should not the burden of proof lie with those who
claim the right to direct the lives of others?
Stanley N. Katz:
A straightforward answer would be that we have for a century or
more experimented with non-structured education. Charles Eliot's
elective system paved the way, after all. More recently Brown
University and many colleges have versions of low-structure
approaches. I would guess (but do not know) that this is effective for
some students. But on the whole I think there is a lot to be said for
a combination of reasonably deep knowledge (the major)and broad
knowledge/process (general education) in preparing a liberally
educated young person. That is the balance that American higher
education had arrived at by the 1960s, in my judgement, and I think
there was a lot to be said for it. But, like everything else, it needs
to be reinvented to be suitable to current challenges. The answer
cannot simply be to go back.
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Question from W. Jones,Texas A&M:
Should diversity education be a part of the new Core curriculm?
Stanley N. Katz:
At the risk of being thought a curmudgeon, I don't think so. At
least not in the sense I suspect you intend. "Diversity" is surely a
value in any approach to general education. But diversity as a
contemporary social value does not need to be singled out from other
values, in my view. Insofar as institutions want structural approaches
to promoting diversity (and I favor this), it can and should be done
through various kinds of modeling and institutional arrangements.
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Malcolm Scully (Moderator):
We have about 20 minutes left. Keep your questions coming. Malcolm
Scully
_________________________________________________________________
Question from Michael G. Hall, U. of Texas at Austin:
Could we not raise large issues by insisting on the world history
context of the usual history topics? For example, Jamestown could
serve as an entryway for discussion of Europe's ongoing encounter with
primitive people, the onset and demise of African slavery, comparative
New World colonization, the world capitalist system, changes in
poliical assumptions from James I to George III, and change from
Renaissance to Enlightenment. All these are conexts of Virgina's
colonial history.
Stanley N. Katz:
Hi, Michael. Of course! I think that World History is an excellent
example of new/old approaches to the revivification of liberal
education. World history uses new techniques and traditional
historical techniques, but it reveals things that traditional
national/chronological history cannot. There are, I feel sure,
comparable opportunities in most fields. My own passion at the moment
is for comparison -- an old and difficult technique, but one that
helps both teachers and students see old configurations in new ways. I
am sure you would agree. Like you, I started out in early American
history. I now study transitions to democracy in the contemporary
world, but having studied Jamestown has given me an enornmous
intellectual leg-up in what I am now trying to do.
Best,
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Question from Roger W. Bowen, AAUP:
In your CHE article, you suggest that it will be difficult to make
"qualitative judgments" about curriculum reform "unless we are safely
beyond the conflicts of the culture wars..." and add that this "seems
problematic at the current moment in American history." Why do the
culture wars continue to plague higher education; and what should
educators be doing to put an end to the "wars"?
Stanley N. Katz:
I wish I knew, Roger. Universities are, as you know, part of
society, and we live in a very conflicted society. At the moment I am
very concerned with the sort of identity politics that is disrupting
so many universities in different ways. Take three examples --
Harvard, Columbia and Colorado. We will work these problems out, but
they are deep and difficult. That is one side of the problem. The
other is the extent to which so many university faculty distance
themselves from anything other than their own disciplinary (or, more
likely, subdisciplinary) world. They cannot engage the problems most
likely to be urgent for undergraduate students -- and they are not
likely to be much interested in addressing larger educational
problems. So we are caught between overly-intense involvement, and
overly-distanced non-involvement. But in the end the universities are
here to train people to maintain the democracy, and we have to keep
reminding ourselves of that fact.
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Question from Neal Gill and Russell Brickey, Purdue University:
Does the proliferation of cyber-culture, particularly at research
institutions, make it even more difficult to pursue liberal arts
instruction? In other words, how might we encourage a more
deliberative, reflective process in our students while they are being
constantly bombarded by the immediate and sensational nature of the
online experience?
Stanley N. Katz:
Well, I would say just the opposite. We need to speak to students
in the languages to which they respond. I am experimenting myself with
teaching on the web and using technology (though I am a novice), and I
think there are many exciting possiblities. The digital humanities
offer tremendous opportunities to teachers, and the same is true in
other fields. The problem is frequently that institutions do not
provide the equipment, technical support or reward for faculty to
learn and use such approaches. I think we need to incorporate
cyber-learning into the mix of liberal education, and I think we can
improve liberal education as we do.
_________________________________________________________________
Question from Scott Mattoon, Choate Rosemary Hall:
How influential is the current Advanced Placement program in high
schools in the shaping (or limiting) of liberal education at the
university level? Despite the dependence of high schools on university
admissions requirements, do universities feel bound in any way to the
kind of curriculum and enterprise espoused by the AP program?
Stanley N. Katz:
Well, I think one of the places the system of higher education is
failing us is in building transitions between high school and college.
The College Board was originally built to address that problem in a
thoughtful and systematic way, but it is not clear to me that it is
capable of doing that anymore. This, I think, is both the fault of the
CB itself and of the dramatic changes in student population and
institutional proliferation. The AP exam and AP courses were meant to
enhance the relationship between school and college, but I worry that
they are now simply upping the pressure in school without doing much
to enhance student experience in college. To the extent that AP course
provide elite challenges in the schools (and provide teachers with
breathing room intellectually), they can be a very good thing. But to
the extent that they are simply an expensive hurdle, and tie students
into very traditional disciplinary approaches, they are not
necessarily a good thing for liberal education at the tertiary level.
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Question from robin.v.catmur at dartmouth.edu:
In the face of burgeoning research priorities held by "Colleges"
(Universities), it is tempting to sacrifice general education to the
lure of faculty generated research dollars, scientific PR coups, and
reams of peer-reviewed published articles. My first question is
institution-specific: if Professor Katz is familiar with Dartmouth
College, would he agree or disagree that we manage to walk this
tightrope fairly well, compared to others, and to what does he
attribute our successes (or, our lack of success, if he disagrees)?
Second, what would he propose as the alternative to allowing and even
encouraging certain specializations ("majors or concentrations, by any
other name) when the undergraduates themselves place a high value on
the exposures and opportunities afforded within a liberal arts College
"surrounded" by a significant research institution? "The content of
knowledge appropriate to our...society", as Professor Katz says, is in
fact determined in no small part by what the students want and need,
in order to succeed post-graduation in a significantly different
world, is it not?
Thank you -
Robin Catmur
Dartmouth College
Stanley N. Katz:
I am a great admirer of Dartmouth, Robin. In fact the original
draft of this article was prepared for a conference on liberal
education hosted by Prof. Jonathan Crewe at your humanities center
last fall. I think that Dartmouth has an enormous advantage, one that
it has seized, in its size. It is simply easier with a moderately
sized student body and faculty, to keep things in perspective and
under control. It also requires enlightened leadership, which you have
had in your presidents for some time. Dartmouth is a great liberal
arts college, and has used its resources well.
But it is a different question about specialization. Majors serve many
students well, but in the ideal I would rather see the option of
special created specializations to suit the interests/needs of
particular students. A start on that is the current programs focused
on problems, not disciplines -- Afro-Am, Women's Studies and the like.
But we could also encourage more free-form problem clusters for
students interested in poverty, and other discrete issues. This is
harder to administer than the current set of majors, and would require
new faculty arrangments. But it is not beyond our capacities to be
much more flexible in the last two years of college.
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Question from ME Madigan, grad student, Univ Neb Lincoln:
Is the effort to continue to serve the public good creating a push
for all of us to become more vocational?
Stanley N. Katz:
I don't think it has to. The "public good" is served by the
creation of independent, critically thinking and creative people. The
historical aim of liberal education is to prepare students for
democratic citizenship, and Dewey and others believed that general
education was the best way to do that. So do I. This is not to say
that someone who majors in a vocational subject cannot be a good
citizen, but it is to say that if that person is also liberally
educated (no contradiction), she will be an even better citizen. I
really believe that.
SNK
_________________________________________________________________
Malcolm Scully (Moderator):
We've come to the end of our allotted time. Many thanks to
Professor Katz and to all those who submitted questions. I'm sorry we
couldn't get to all of them. Clearly Professor Katz has raised a
crucial issue, and we appreciate the thoughtfulness of the questions
and the answers.
References
43. http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i30/30b00601.htm
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list