<p>For those of you who read the Wall Street Journal, there is an editorial this morning with the title “How Jane Austen Taught Me to be a Man”. </p>
<p>The author makes the point that there is a difference between knowing a lot and being an educated person, and that one of the reason he came to that conclusion was by coming to know himself in the reflection of Jane Austen’s heroines. </p>
<p>full disclosure - he’s just written a book - I think I might get it and read it. And another full disclosure - I love Jane Austen. And yet another full disclosure - I majored in History and Literature, but took a lot of math courses, and yes, the thing that makes me employable and able to pay my kids’ tuition probably has more to do with the math than anything else. I’m not an engineer - but most of my time is spent solving problems, and the problems seem to lay themselves out better when you take a mathematical/logical approach to them. </p>
<p>Having said that - would I call math “vocational”? In a way, yes, but it’s more than that - it’s a way of thinking. And if education is developing ways of thinking, and coming to know yourself, then math and science, and the habits of questioning what you think is “the right way”, probably is at least as “liberal” as history or literature. </p>
<p>So, back to the question of what is education, and what is educational rigor - this is probably the natural home for such a discussion (thanks Pelicandad for starting the thread!), and I would love to hear people’s thoughts on that. I can start out by saying I don’t think educational rigor has to do with how many “double800sontheSATs” you are surrounded with…but I’m sure there are other opinions out there. All ears!</p>