Then something happened which was totally unexpected for me. One of the students got up and said, "I'm one of the two students whom Mr. Feynman referred to at the end of his talk. I was not educated in Brazil; I was educated in Germany, and I've just come to Brazil this year."
The other student who had done well in class had a similar thing to say. And the professor I had mentioned got up and said, "I was educated here in Brazil during the war, when, fortunately, all of the professors had left the university, so I learned everything by reading alone. Therefore I was not really educated under the Brazilian system."
I didn't expect that. I knew the system was bad, but 100 percent—it was terrible!
Since I had gone to Brazil under a program sponsored by the United States 65 Government, I was asked by the State Department to write a report about my experiences in Brazil, so I wrote out the essentials of the speech I had just given. I found out later through the grapevine that the reaction of somebody in the State Department was, "That shows you how dangerous it is to send somebody to Brazil who is so naive. Foolish fellow; he can only cause trouble. He didn't understand the problems." Quite the contrary! I think this person in the State Department was naive to think that because he saw a university with a list of courses and descriptions, that's what it was.
UNDERSTANDING THE TEXT
1. How would you characterize the difference between the knowledge possessed by the students that Feynman encounters and the knowledge that Feynman believes that they should have?
What is the purpose of examinations in the educational system that Feynman describes?
How does Feynman characterize the role of social pressures in perpetuating Brazil's flawed educational system? What kinds of peer pressures do the students he meets describe?
How would Feynman recommend that science be taught in elementary schools? How does this compare with the way that science usually is taught? Compare your own educational experiences to those described in the text.
How does Feynman characterize his experience with the U.S. government when he wrote a report about his experience in Brazil? Why do you think he includes this final reflection? What parallels can we draw between Brazilian science students and American government workers?
MAKING CONNECTIONS
Are the methods of teaching physics that Feynman describes culturally specific phenomena, such as those described by Ruth Benedict (p. 112)? Is it unreasonable for Feynman to expect students from a different culture to understand and teach science the way that he does? Why or why not?
Compare Feynman's approach to teaching physics with Edmund Burke's understanding of aesthetics in "The Sublime and Beautiful" (p. 256). How might Feynman characterize the "sublime" that is central to Burke's work?
WRITING ABOUT THE TEXT
Describe your own experience learning science in school. Was your education one that Feynman would have approved of, or would he have made the same accusations of your instructors as he did of the Brazilian educational system?
Many educators would challenge Feynman's belief that knowing the names of things and being able to define them is "meaningless." Being able to define concepts, they argue, is an essential part of being able to understand them at any level. Write an essay in which you agree or disagree with this position.
Describe how Feynman's distinction between knowing the name of a thing and truly understanding how to do it applies to the writing process. Which do you believe is the more effective way to teach writing? Why?
martha nussbaum
Education for Profit, Education for Democracy
[2010]
MARTHA NUSSBAUM (b. 1947) is an American philosopher, classicist, and legal theorist. She received her Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1975 and taught at Harvard, Brown, and Oxford Universities before moving to the University of Chicago, where she is the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law. She is the author or editor of more than twenty books on topics in ethics, aesthetics, social policy, and education reform.
In her book Cultivating Humanity (1997), Nussbaum argued that institutions of higher education should look to Greek and Roman models of learning for inspiration as they reform their curricula and approaches to education. Nussbaum cites the arguments of Plato and Seneca to argue that education should encourage critical self-examination and prepare students to be "citizens of the world," which requires them to understand and appreciate culture, gender, religion, and other forms of diversity. Cultivating Humanity was written partially in response to conservative thinkers who had strongly criticized modern colleges and universities for their focus on "multiculturalism" at the expense of the Western tradition.
The selection in this chapter is taken from Nussbaum's second major book on higher education: Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (2010). In this book, Nussbaum argues that the current focus on education as a form of career training fails to teach students the skills necessary to participate in the political process. If this trend is not reversed, "nations all over the world will soon be producing generations of useful machines, rather than complete citizens who can think for themselves, criticize tradition, and understand the significance of another person's sufferings and achievements. The future of the world's democracies hangs in the balance." In other words, government by the people requires that the citizens it governs be capable of thinking critically about political issues and participating fully in the political process. And it is education in the humanities, not training in the professions, that makes this possible.
In this chapter, "Education for Profit, Education for Democracy," Nussbaum compares two possible paradigms for education: education for economic growth and education for human development. Using the United States and India as her primary examples, Nussbaum argues that democratic nations tend to approve abstractly of human development goals, or goals to improve the overall quality of the life of their citizens, but under economic pressure to grow, often ignore their own values and force education into the narrow role of facilitating economic growth.
In this selection, Nussbaum illustrates the discrepancies between what democratic societies value and what they actually do. By beginning with quotations from the American and Indian constitutions, she demonstrates that both nations have a deep commitment to democracy, dignity, and quality of life for all of their citizens. This provides a springboard for her analysis of the distance between these goals and current educational policies, which focus on economic growth at any cost.
We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
—Preamble, Constitution of the United States, 1787
We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to . . . secure to all its citizens: Justice, economic and political;
Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity and to promote among them all
Frater nity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
In our constituent assembly this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this constitution.
—Preamble, Constitution of India, 1949
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups.