Why do fundies think education = memorization?

[YPestis]

Anna T has a new post which touches on education: http://ccostello.blogspot.com/2012/03/education.html

FYI, she's a fundie Jewish gal who hates working mothers, public education and feminism. Anna have always complained about the mindlessness of public education and wants to home school her children. I find it interesting she then posts quote from a Jane Austen novel which showcases the "great" education children who can "repeat the chronological order of the kings of England, with the dates of their accession, and most of the principal events of their reigns".

Right, because today's children are so ignorant not to spend all their days memorizing dates and events, rather they critique and analyze those same events? Oh, did I mention that the average child today is expected to learn algebra, trigonometry and biology? I wonder how many children back in those days learned to program a computer in school?

I guess I'm always frustrated when fundies bash (public) education, they always point out how children back in the days knew the dates and times of kings back ten generations while kids nowadays could barely name five. Yet, these are the same fundies who decry the mindnumbing curriculum of the educational system. These same fundies also forget to mention that there exists classes which has children to research data to support their thesis. Or that students don't spend hours memorizing random facts because they have to make time for "new" subjects like science and math classes.

Why do fundies think the mark of education is knowing dates and names? They ignore the idea that education also means to think and reason. They never acknowledge that an educated child can also be one that derives an equation and explain the physiology of a pig or balance a chemical equation?

I suspect it's because for most fundies, their education consists of memorization. Anything that requires thought is bad. Hence, they stick their nose at people who may not know all the kings of England and ignore the kids who can do calculus (because who needs calculus when you know the ascension date of Edwards II?).

Anyways, I've had this argument with others on this and I am always quick to point out, while our educational system is imperfect, that doesn't mean kids learn less than in the days past. What we lose in learning penmanship, we gain in learning to type. What we lose in memorizing historical dates, we gain in analyzing the causes of those events. Education is constantly changing. I don't want my kid to have a 19th century education because he's going to live in the 21st!

[eineAnanas]

If the kids learn to reason they might start questioning their beliefs and family situation. It's far too risky to let that happen, so they just deprive their children of critical thinking skills.

[Conuly]

It's a very old-fashioned type of education. These people worship and fetishize the past, so really, is it a surprise that they advocate an old-fashioned type of education for their children?

Plus, really, it has to be easier to give your kid a list of dates to memorize than to talk them through several primary documents and have them assess the causes and consequences of various historical events. And once you've done that, it has to be easier to assess your child if you just give them a bunch of fill-in-the-blank questions rather than if you expect them to defend their opinion on... whatever it is!

[Miggy]

Isn't the biggest part of a fundy childs education memorising the bible? I notice Michelle Duggar has recently stated her goal is to "finish memorising Matthew 5-7". I can't work out why you need to memorise something you can easily look up but then, I went to a public school.

[Conuly]

I can't work out why you need to memorise something you can easily look up but then, I went to a public school.

Well, it's good, fun exercise for the brain. I like to memorize poems and song lyrics myself, just for fun. The whole point of poetry, at least in its origins, was to be easy to memorize by using lyrical tricks! And it's certainly true that illiterates tend to have a better memory than people who can read, for just that reason - they can't look stuff up!

Of course, there are other ways to exercise your brain than memorizing large chunks of information. There's no reason to laud one form over another, and simply having memorized a lot of stuff is no proof of intelligence or sense. It just means you've spent a lot of time doing something that most of the time proves to be of no real practical value. As you said, you can look most things up, or google them nowadays.

[Third]

We all memorize some things as part of learning like our multiplication tables. I also had to memorize poems, songs etc for school or memorizing music.

I agree that memorizing is a very old way to teach. Back when their were few books so you have to memorize a lot of material. Back when most families only had a few books or just the one.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

It's a very old-fashioned type of education. These people worship and fetishize the past, so really, is it a surprise that they advocate an old-fashioned type of education for their children?

Plus, really, it has to be easier to give your kid a list of dates to memorize than to talk them through several primary documents and have them assess the causes and consequences of various historical events. And once you've done that, it has to be easier to assess your child if you just give them a bunch of fill-in-the-blank questions rather than if you expect them to defend their opinion on... whatever it is!

This. Plus I think it just fits right in line with the idea of received religion - these are the facts, there is one truth which was spelled out in the Scriptures, our role is to figure out how to live by analyzing the old scriptures and applying them to life. We can nitpick over words and have insights about the content, but all of the content is true (no matter how we have to twist to make that happen) AND all of the previous writings by people we revere as part of our tradition are also canon, because they were closer to the revealing than we are. The previous generation knows everything, your job is to learn it all and then pass it on to your kids.

Contrast that with a good scientific education or a modern critical theory higher education class, where the entire point is to always ask "oh yeah? How do you know?"

People end up revered in that system too but only as long as their stuff stands up to the latest inquiry, once it no longer does then they are still revered but pass on into the "were wonderful thinkers for their time and helped us get to the point where we could eventually prove them wrong, they would be happy to see us do it too, if we showed them the proof." No modern evolutionary scholars insist everything Darwin said is 100% true - and in fact the way so many fundies argue against his original writings as if modern scientists DO think that way is very telling.

[Elphaba]

Well, I know that Christian fundies do not typically value critical thinking skills. It's not necessary to fully understand concepts, as long as you can parrot them back, is the mindset.

[O Latin]

I'm one who thinks memorization just for the hell of it is fun. I don't know any dates, but I can do monarchs of England and presidents of the U.S. in order. It doesn't serve any purpose (besides occasionally giving me a leg up in Trivial Pursuit), but I just think it's a fun little brain exercise. I've taken Art History classes where we have to memorize name/artist/period/etc. for various works of art and that's always one of my favorite things. But memorization does not equal education.

[Anise]

My experience has been that people, particularly one's peers, tend to assume a person is intelligent by the random facts she/he knows rather than critical thinking ability. For example, when I critique the artificiality of the distinction between military and civilian in a discussion on terrorism, people just think I'm weird. But when I remember that Aceh in Sumatra had an independence movement, they think I'm smart. :?

[debrand]

I LOVE reading about history and it always saddens me that so many people hate the subject. One thing I 've discovered is that adults who were forced to view history as a series of dates grow up to be people who not only dislike history but know nothing about it. They don't retain those dates in adulthood.

Homeschooling can be a wonderful way to individualize education for children. A lot of parents don't want to put the effort into their teaching. They want to hand the kids workbooks and have them memorize a bunch of dates so that the parent doesn't have to work. The mom can keep a spotless house and have kids who can prove their superiority to public school kids because they know all the right dates.

[julie paradox]

I can't quite place that Austen quote, but I'm pretty sure she was being snarky about the education she mentioned.

[saraelise]

I can't quite place that Austen quote, but I'm pretty sure she was being snarky about the education she mentioned.

She usually was being satirical about the society she depicts. Austen doesn't seem to have a good opinion about "good" 19th century society.

[lilwriter85]

The public schools I attended sometimes did memorization activities with poems, parts of plays, state capitals, and math stuff. In high school, I knew a few kids who used to attend Bible memorization classes at local church. Sometime back Zsu posted a picture of her homeschooling schedule and I remember there was a small chunk devoted to Bible memorization.

[AmyP]

They may be referring to a classical model, which, in a drastic oversimplification, spends grades 1-4 learning and memorizing facts, grades 5-8 learning and analyzing why things happened and thinking more abstractly, and grades 9-12 learning to express themselves, thier opinions, and their conclusions clearly and creatively in both writing and speaking. In this model, grades 9-12 could also be spent specializing in an area of particular interest, such as computers, science, history, etc.

I roughly follow this model with my kids, and I have found that it perfectly matches their developmental phases. Like clockwork, in the spring of her fourth grade year, my daughter has started to offer opinions on why she thinks things happened, wants to analyze and give opinions, and generally argues with everything. Great time to intruduce analytical learning, logic, and begin math subjects that require analytical thinking, rather than memorization. On the other hand, my first grader loves nothing more than chanting facts. She could care less about World War I, but she takes great delight in reciting her dates and facts about World War I.

So, I kind of agree. I don't think we teach enough facts in the early grades, and frustrate many children by trying to teach them to think analytically before they are ready. I think we spend too much time on facts in the later grades, because they were not taught in the early grades, and kids get bored because they are ready for a different kind of learning at that point.

This is obviously a gross generalization. I expect there are many exceptions to this.

[melk]

For some reason, this thread is making me think of this:

[BelieveinScience]

I LOVE reading about history and it always saddens me that so many people hate the subject. One thing I 've discovered is that adults who were forced to view history as a series of dates grow up to be people who not only dislike history but know nothing about it. They don't retain those dates in adulthood.

Homeschooling can be a wonderful way to individualize education for children. A lot of parents don't want to put the effort into their teaching. They want to hand the kids workbooks and have them memorize a bunch of dates so that the parent doesn't have to work. The mom can keep a spotless house and have kids who can prove their superiority to public school kids because they know all the right dates.

I don't like history (I only like reading about the holocaust) but I had teachers who didn't make it fun or engaging growing up so I memorized the information then promptly forgot it. If teachers made it more engaging I think a lot more people would like history. I used to hate math even though I was good at it but then I started getting teachers that made the subject fun and now I love to do math.

[dairyfreelife]

I think all schools do some memorization techniques. I had to memorize lots of things, like multiplication tables, all the states and their capitals and my sister's teacher made her memorize all the counties in the state (there's 50 something of them). I never had to memorize all the English kings/queens though. I know many of them, but I can state for a fact that I learned more by games and projects than I did memorizing facts. Most of the time my teachers played games to help with memory and not just reciting. I learned a lot about Charlemagne and Shakespeare and Wyoming and Hong Kong and many other people and places by doing reports, posters, pop-up books, games, brochures, etc. that required me to research and write and create something about people and places.

Debrand, I hated most subjects in school, but grew to really love history and English and other languages once I got to college. I think the tests and memorization all the time makes those subjects really boring quite often. Same with math even, but I still don't like math personally. I'm just not good at the subject.

[pomology]

If I wanted to know the names of Kings of England and dates of accession, I would look it up on the internet. You know what I can't look up on the internet? Critical thinking skills. I actually really like memorizing random stuff, but that is NOT an education.

[pomology]

I LOVE reading about history and it always saddens me that so many people hate the subject. One thing I 've discovered is that adults who were forced to view history as a series of dates grow up to be people who not only dislike history but know nothing about it. They don't retain those dates in adulthood.

As a history major, I concur.

[Kitty]

Memorization can be a useful part of education. At any rate, if you have to study something long enough and often enough, chances are you'll memorize it anyway. In marching band I had to memorize both music and drill. You just kind of do it after a while. In other, more 'traditional' class like math and all that we'd all be drilled in memorization and test-taking techniques. I think that fucked me up for life; I was already good at memorizing things and taking tests, and being forced to do stupid shit like that ruined the skills I already had. You focus more on actual test-taking and memorization than you do what you're supposed to be memorizing and testing on! :doh: I had the highest test scores in my classes because I actually retained shit. When I was in high school I'd listen to my classmates bitch

Most of my Bible education was memorization. I had to memorize the same 4 verses so often that I can still remember them nearly 8 years after leaving AWANA. But I couldn't tell you anything about the real meaning or even their context. I can regurgitate John 3:16, but I couldn't tell you shit about John 3:17. I couldn't tell you anything about the book of John or its author (other than that his name was John and he knew Jesus). After leaving AWANA, the church I went to, and later Christianity and religion altogether, I came across the same Bible verses so often in discussions that I memorized those verses. I suck at remembering chapters and verse numbers, but I could cite the verses word-for-word.

The thing is, fundies (and I'd argue evangelicals, from personal experience) don't want anyone actually thinking about the Bible. They don't want anyone actually thinking about the Bible. They will cherry-pick all the verses they like that promote their views, and more that make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and tell kids to memorize those. That's the philosophy behind memorization-based Bible education. Us secular folk have figured out that that doesn't work for math, English, science, or foreign languages, but everyone still insists on it for history and the Bible. It's not effective at all.

Re: the history talk, I'm a history geek, but I SUCK at remembering dates. The only dates I can remember for anything right now is the 1640s through the 1660s, in China, going from the Ming dynasty to the Qing dynasty. I could tell you any damn thing about the Tudors through the Glorious Revolution in England... but dates? Oh fuck it.

[YPestis]

I agree that some memorization is needed to lay foundation for future learning. I had to memorize the Kreb Cycle something like three times....however, no one thinks I'm a doctor because I can write equations and draw out molecular processes. I am expected to diagnose patients, understand the pathophysiology of their disease pathology and outline a treatment plan. I am expected to use what I learned, not regurgitate what my notes said.

However, it appears that fundies equate memorizing mind numbing facts with being educated. They tsk tsk modern education for not doing enough to make students recite facts. They ignore the importance of analyzing, critiquing, questioning. They don't acknowledge that schools now require subjects students in the past never had to deal with. Laura Ingalls could stand to recite all the kings of England because she never had to take chemistry or a programming course.

It's one reason I could never understand this obsession with all things old. I mean, the 19th century prepared children for life in that century. A 21st century child need to know subjects, and learn them in a way that helps them to understand the world in the 21st century.

[browngrl]

If the kids learn to reason they might start questioning their beliefs and family situation. It's far too risky to let that happen, so they just deprive their children of critical thinking skills.

QFT

This is my opinion as well. The whole fundie culture seems to be founded on "keeping sweet" and obeying rules. Any one who questions/thinks in the fundie world will not do well. Best for them to stick with bland memorization.

[freejoytoo]

Why do fundies idolise Austen so much? Do they not realise she is being satirical about the society she's in and that the women actually think for themselves instead of doing what Daddy wants?

[emmiedahl]

If I wanted to know the names of Kings of England and dates of accession, I would look it up on the internet. You know what I can't look up on the internet? Critical thinking skills. I actually really like memorizing random stuff, but that is NOT an education.

That's the thing. Back in Austen's time, information was hard to come by. There were not public libraries and books were expensive. So people only had daily access to information stored in their brain, making memorization an important part of learning. In modern times, information is constantly available, making rote memorization obsolete in many cases.

That said, I have found that in many of my more difficult classes, rote memorization has a place. It is hard to understand a concept until I know the details. Once I have rote memorized, I can begin to actually see what is going on. For example, in biochemistry I have to to learn about some complex reaction involving chymotrypsin. So I rote memorized the reaction and the characteristics of the various components, then I began to actually see how the different molecules were interacting. But not everyone's brain works that way!