.
On Education
Aztecs vs. Greeks
By CHARLES MURRAY
January 18, 2007; Page A17
Wall Street Journal
If "intellectually gifted" is defined to mean people
who can become theoretical physicists, then we're talking about no more
than a few people per thousand and perhaps many fewer. They are
cognitive curiosities, too rare to have that much impact on the
functioning of society from day to day. But if "intellectually gifted"
is defined to mean people who can stand out in almost any profession
short of theoretical physics, then research about IQ and job performance
indicates that an IQ of at least 120 is usually needed. That number
demarcates the top 10% of the IQ distribution, or about 15 million
people in today's labor force -- a lot of people.
In professions screened for IQ by educational
requirements -- medicine, engineering, law, the sciences and academia --
the great majority of people must, by the nature of the selection
process, have IQs over 120. Evidence about who enters occupations where
the screening is not directly linked to IQ indicates that people with
IQs of 120 or higher also occupy large proportions of positions in the
upper reaches of corporate America and the senior ranks of government.
People in the top 10% of intelligence produce most of the books and
newspaper articles we read and the television programs and movies we
watch. They are the people in the laboratories and at workstations who
invent our new pharmaceuticals, computer chips, software and every other
form of advanced technology.
Combine these groups, and the top 10% of the
intelligence distribution has a huge influence on whether our economy is
vital or stagnant, our culture healthy or sick, our institutions secure
or endangered. Of the simple truths about intelligence and its
relationship to education, this is the most important and least
acknowledged: Our future depends crucially on how we educate the next
generation of people gifted with unusually high intelligence.
How assiduously does our federal government work to see
that this precious raw material is properly developed? In 2006, the
Department of Education spent about $84 billion. The only program to
improve the education of the gifted got $9.6 million, one-hundredth of
1% of expenditures. In the 2007 budget, President Bush zeroed it out.
But never mind. A large proportion of gifted children
are born to parents who value their children's talent and do their best
to see that it is realized. Most gifted children without such parents
are recognized by someone somewhere along the educational line and
pointed toward college. No evidence indicates that the nation has many
children with IQs above 120 who are not given an opportunity for higher
education. The university system has also become efficient in shipping
large numbers of the most talented high-school graduates to the most
prestigious schools. The allocation of this human capital can be
criticized -- it would probably be better for the nation if more of the
gifted went into the sciences and fewer into the law. But if the issue
is amount of education, then the nation is doing fine with its next
generation of gifted children. The problem with the education of the
gifted involves not their professional training, but their training as
citizens.
We live in an age when it is unfashionable to talk
about the special responsibility of being gifted, because to do so
acknowledges inequality of ability, which is elitist, and inequality of
responsibilities, which is also elitist. And so children who know they
are smarter than the other kids tend, in a most human reaction, to think
of themselves as superior to them. Because giftedness is not to be
talked about, no one tells high-IQ children explicitly, forcefully and
repeatedly that their intellectual talent is a gift. That they are not
superior human beings, but lucky ones. That the gift brings with it
obligations to be worthy of it. That among those obligations, the most
important and most difficult is to aim not just at academic
accomplishment, but at wisdom.
The encouragement of wisdom requires a special kind of
education. It requires first of all recognition of one's own
intellectual limits and fallibilities -- in a word, humility. This is
perhaps the most conspicuously missing part of today's education of the
gifted. Many high-IQ students, especially those who avoid serious
science and math, go from kindergarten through an advanced degree
without ever having a teacher who is dissatisfied with their best work
and without ever taking a course that forces them to say to themselves,
"I can't do this." Humility requires that the gifted learn what it feels
like to hit an intellectual wall, just as all of their less talented
peers do, and that can come only from a curriculum and pedagogy designed
especially for them. That level of demand cannot fairly be imposed on a
classroom that includes children who do not have the ability to respond.
The gifted need to have some classes with each other not to be coddled,
but because that is the only setting in which their feet can be held to
the fire.
The encouragement of wisdom requires mastery of
analytical building blocks. The gifted must assimilate the details of
grammar and syntax and the details of logical fallacies not because they
will need them to communicate in daily life, but because these are
indispensable for precise thinking at an advanced level.
The encouragement of wisdom requires being steeped in
the study of ethics, starting with Aristotle and Confucius. It is not
enough that gifted children learn to be nice. They must know what it
means to be good.
The encouragement of wisdom requires an advanced
knowledge of history. Never has the aphorism about the fate of those who
ignore history been more true.
All of the above are antithetical to the mindset that
prevails in today's schools at every level. The gifted should not be
taught to be nonjudgmental; they need to learn how to make accurate
judgments. They should not be taught to be equally respectful of Aztecs
and Greeks; they should focus on the best that has come before them,
which will mean a light dose of Aztecs and a heavy one of Greeks. The
primary purpose of their education should not be to let the little
darlings express themselves, but to give them the tools and the
intellectual discipline for expressing themselves as adults.
In short, I am calling for a revival of the classical
definition of a liberal education, serving its classic purpose: to
prepare an elite to do its duty. If that sounds too much like Plato's
Guardians, consider this distinction. As William F. Buckley rightly
instructs us, it is better to be governed by the first 2,000 names in
the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard University. But we
have that option only in the choice of our elected officials. In all
other respects, the government, economy and culture are run by a
cognitive elite that we do not choose. That is the reality, and we are
powerless to change it. All we can do is try to educate the elite to be
conscious of, and prepared to meet, its obligations. For years, we have
not even thought about the nature of that task. It is time we did.
* * *
The goals that should shape the evolution of American
education are cross-cutting and occasionally seem contradictory.
Yesterday, I argued the merits of having a large group of high-IQ people
who do not bother to go to college; today, I argue the merits of special
education for the gifted. The two positions are not in the end
incompatible, but there is much more to be said, as on all the issues I
have raised.
The aim here is not to complete an argument but to
begin a discussion; not to present policy prescriptions, but to plead
for greater realism in our outlook on education. Accept that some
children will be left behind other children because of intellectual
limitations, and think about what kind of education will give them the
greatest chance for a fulfilling life nonetheless. Stop telling children
that they need to go to college to be successful, and take advantage of
the other, often better ways in which people can develop their talents.
Acknowledge the existence and importance of high intellectual ability,
and think about how best to nurture the children who possess it.
Mr. Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the
American Enterprise Institute.