Re getting an “education” from “real life experiences,” suffice it to say that you’re only establishing yourself as an anti-intellectual; this is exactly the sort of thing that anti-intellectuals say. I’m not actually interested in arguing the merits of reading the classics with an anti-intellectual–at least not right now.

The reasoning you gave there has nothing to do with Shakespeare. Shakespeare could be replaced by any other Western language drama in the above sentence and the logic would not change. So you haven’t really answered the question in the sense that you haven’t really pointed out anything unique that makes Shakespeare itself worth study. An example of something substantial would be “Shakespeare is worth studying because he was a close friend of a dozen European monarchs and they based national borders directly on what he wrote” (of course I just made that up, feel free to replace it with something more truthful).

“if and when you get more of an education yourself, you will no doubt learn that a liberal education tends to make you fit to appreciate–and therefore really enjoy–some of the classics”

Here I’m pleased to report we’re in complete agreement. I could never have appreciated the French Revolution before watching the Egyptian and Libyan protests live and then taking part in Occupy Columbus events in person. Before I’d had experiences with dating and relationships on my own, I was far less equipped to understand relationships in Shakespeare. Before being a PhD student myself, I could never have appreciated some of the subtle remarks about students in “Crime and Punishment”, much less effectively used the book to get a glimpse into the lives of students in a previous era. However, we’re in disagreement in that you seem to think this “education”, needed to appreciate classics, must necessarily come … circularly … from reading classics, whereas I think it comes better from real life experiences!

You can seriously ask what makes Shakespeare “more sacred or profound” than Harry Potter? Knowledge of Shakespeare happens to be an important part of a Western liberal education because he is the finest dramatist in any Western language. Whether he really is, and what makes him so, is a matter of debate, but if you were better educated you would understand the issues in the debate.

No, the fact that someone enjoys something does not make it somehow an unintellectual pursuit (people, not books, are anti-intellectual). Indeed, if and when you get more of an education yourself, you will no doubt learn that a liberal education tends to make you fit to appreciate–and therefore really enjoy–some of the classics. Not all well-educated people enjoy all the classics; I still don’t have much patience for Steinbeck, to mention a modern classic. But I have recently greatly enjoyed, and read for pleasure, Jane Austin, Sir Walter Scott, and Tolstoy. I’ve also read all seven Harry Potter novels!

Your aliens would no doubt be highly knowledgeable about physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, mathematics, logic, and probably parts of philosophy. But they would, of course, be ignorant of the Earth and of the cultures of its denizens until they had studied us. Do you have some point in making your observations about aliens and the Japanese? I doubt it. I think you have vaguely in mind that standards of education are culturally relative. Well, of course they are. Does this mean that educational standards are unimportant or driven by whim, and does it make all standards of education culturally relative? Of course not.

Coming back to reality, I’ve been shocked recently at how little some Japanese friends of mine know about what happened in Western Europe during World War II. On the other hand, they know a lot more about what happened in Asia during World War II, for obvious reasons.

As for Shakespeare, that’s completely arbitrary. What makes Shakespeare more sacred or profound than Harry Potter? Why should knowledge of the former be some kind of golden standard of education? Based on what you’ve said, I’d assume you’d call the latter anti-intellectual: after all, if people enjoy it, how intellectual can it be?

I think this “just in case” idea of education was Wheeler’s point. All of the subjects mentioned above are usually quite interesting and fun in primary school but by 14 or 15 years old most of us have a fair idea what we are interested in or capable of. And besides, as long as I have the ability to learn and can read, why couldn’t I have taken up art after school? I don’t remember any of the art lessons but I have acquired an appreciation of art since leaving school. Same with History and Geography.

I guess the idea that K-12 needs to be broad is what I really disagree with. K-9 maybe. K-6 most probably. We don’t all need a B.A.

This is based on comparisons of concepts that were covered in textbooks in certain grades in the 1950′s and what is covered now. US students are also about 2 to 3 years behind students in other countries based on similar studies.

The usefulness of a particular subject depends on the job. Different employers have different needs. Knowing a foreign language may be necessary in one job and not another. The point of a K-12 education should be to expose kids to a lot of different subjects. What will be “useful” to one student may not be “useful” to another. But how can anyone know what will be “useful” or “a complete waste of time” to any particular 5, 8 or 12 year who has no idea what they want to do with their life?

It’s interesting you consider art to be a waste of time. I worked as a web designer for many years. Maybe the art I did in school helped. Is learning music useless? Kids who learn a musical instrument are better at math. Defining usefulness is really difficult because you never know how the things you learned contributed to your later abilities. Maybe some things you think were a waste of time actually weren’t.

Of Wheeler’s list of subjects I can see a few I would still use: maths, English and Science. I know a lot more about History than I did in high school but only because I became interested in it in my 20s. Didn’t need school to learn any of it, understanding English was enough. Geography never made sense to me until the last 10 years but I wish it had earlier. As for the other subjects, complete waste of time as far as I’m concerned. Which subjects would you say are of value to an employer?