Five thing I like about George Wythe

You know what I like?

Objectivity.

It seems to be a lost art, but I really like it when someone can see both good and bad, and evaluate things in an environment unrestrained by biases.

Ironically, those sources that most people turn to, often do have a bias. News media is biased to the left, talk radio in these parts is biased to the right. But neither one seems to remember Journalism: reporting the facts, all of them, and letting people decide. And what's worse, when you check their facts, sometimes they were misrepresented, though hopefully not intentionally.

So in the interest of presenting a more complete picture, though potentially still sort of biased, I have decided to write five things that I like about George Wythe, and five that I don't like.

_______________________________________

For convenience I will try to pull the basis of my thoughts/ideas from the GW website.


#1. Their mission statement.
I like their mission statement, It's basically a pretty good mission.
To build men and women of virtue, wisdom, diplomacy and courage who inspire greatness in others and move the cause of liberty. I'm not sure what it means to them to move the cause of liberty. But I'm glad for the liberties that I do have.

#2. Classics.
Their education is based on reading the classics. I think there are a lot of classics, that people would do well to read. I would like to read more good books. Reading good books is definitely commendable.

#3. 'With class sizes of 10-20 students and a 1:7 mentor/student ratio.... the ideal of a personalized education with constant interaction and individual attention.' I'm not sure exaclty how that works (mathematically) but I like the concept of small classes, and individual attention.

#4. Website.
Their Website. On the whole it's a fairly good website. It's well designed (Good job Matt). It's fairly easy to navigate, and it has it's fair share of information. I've seen many a website that was not nearly as good.

#5. Stan Szczesny
It's true I like Stan Szczesny, and not just the name. I actually think he might be a genius. His musical ability, is pretty remarkable. His cognitive process seems well formed/ thorough.
And he's nice to me, I think that's just his way.

______________________________________

Five things I dislike.

#1. GWU!
The official name of the school is George Wythe University, They probably did it to add credibility. Honestly I don't care why they did it, I really don't think it's a University. Ironically the best definition to prove my point came from a George Wythe University student, here's what she said a University was:
An institution for higher learning with teaching and research facilities constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award master's degrees and doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor's degrees, the buildings and grounds of such an institution, and the body of students and faculty of such an institution.*

I doubt I could have said it better myself. Ü

*Dictionary.com, "university," in The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Source location: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/university. Available: http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed: July 04, 2009.

#2. Mentors
What is a Mentor anyway? I mean, really, why can't they use the same words that everyone else uses. Why can't they have teacher's: people who are experts in a subject, and experts in TEACHING. I know of a kid who left them, because they wouldn't teach, they just kept telling him that if he kept reading their books, he would learn the things he was trying to learn, regardless of his particular style of learning (if I had to guess, I'd assume most people aren't fully in that learning category).

#3. "The ones who come out on top are the ones
who have been trained in the hardest school."
~Thucydides~

I have to fundamentally disagree with this idea. It assumes too much. Granted, I will say that some of the best schools are indeed very challenging, but most of the time a good teacher, can take something incredibly hard, and easily help people who are adequately prepared to understand such difficult concepts. And my second point, making something harder, for the sake of making it hard, can be self defeating, In the real world we often call that busywork. Yes I realize that hard things can be valuable, but it reminds me of a time when I was in school. I was not what you might call a good student growing up. Sure, I wasn't a bad kid, but I struggled. Especially I struggled with math. It was awful: one subject could consume a perfectly good day. Fifty problems, just to be sure you understood. And I didn't. I would not. I didn't like it, and it was the enemy. It was hard. It was hard until I met Mrs. Ferguson. Her philosophy was that math was awesome! And SHE wasn't going to ruin it. She knew that these concepts were really quite simple, but that nobody would want to do 50 problems. So she never assigned fifty problems. If you could get it with five that's what you did, If you couldn't with five, you got to do ten. By not purposefully making things hard, she taught me that I could do math. That I was good at math. That I might even love math. She knew that there was more to learning and education than simply being trained in the hardest places/ ways.

Work smarter not harder. I think this has merit.

Which brings me to my next point.
#4. "Mathematics is an integral part of a statesman’s education. Whether it is applied mathematics or its philosophical side, statesmen learn to solve problems and think logically and orderly when they set their minds and hearts to the study of mathematics." Quoted from the website. It sounds really good. But I've never met a GW student that made me think 'mathematics (and especially applied mathematics) was an integral part of their educational experience.'


#5. Types of education. At George Wythe they believe in three types of education.
"A) Conveyor Belt (employee) education exists to prepare everyone for a job, any job, by teaching them what to think. This includes rudimentary skills designed to fit them to function in society [coincidentally I heard something about this in conference].
B) Professional education ranges from apprenticeships and trade schools to law, medical and MBA programs. Its purpose is to create specialists by teaching them when to think.
C) Leadership education teaches students how to think and prepares them to be leaders in their homes and communities, entrepreneurs in business, and statesmen in government. "

Wow, I can't believe how degrading they are of other people and institutions. [Oliver said this would happen, but I think that he kind of started it]. Ironically I don't think I've met many groups so homogeneous, like they came off the conveyor belt. I do think that it is important to know how to think, but when and why and what are pretty important too. I think these concepts can co-exist. You can learn skills, principles and processes. I've had classes like that. I know that there are classes, that are like that in many places. To assume that their education is the kind that will teach a person how to think, is to ignore all the greatness and thinking from those who aren't them. And that's why it bugs me so much, because sometimes it feels like that. Like they are better than their peers. I don't think they all feel this way, in fact I hope it's something they are doing better with. I hope it's something we can all do better with.
May God help us when we feel that way.

There are in fact some good things happening all around, and that includes at George Wythe. I hope they will continue to work on their problem areas, and who knows, maybe one day they will be even more than they have been.