by Logan Ferrell ('11)
It is that time of year again; that time, when all MLWGS students are forced to confront their futures, whether they are ready or not. That’s right, another year’s scheduling has come around, and all other worries are temporarily eclipsed in the mad rush to squeeze in, cut out, or discover new classes for the coming year.
It is that mad rush, and my own attempts to balance a schedule, which have led me to a new conclusion about our credit requirements. Firstly, let me say, that I accept the fact that there must be some curriculum framework and some universal academic requirements.
However, outside the realm of basic and practical knowledge, students are generally allowed to decide which classes are not only interesting to them, but which may best serve them in higher education and the real world.
That said, there remains still a major impediment to allowing student created schedules, and that is the fine arts credit required by the state. It has always seemed to me, that the main purpose of a school such as ours is to provide an environment for students with focused interests, while not necessarily excluding all courses outside the realm of “government and international relations”.
Seeing that, there are other schools focused on other areas of interest such as art. So, there exists the opportunity for students whose priority is art, to learn in an environment based on that. Even so, our school still offers optional art courses for people who have multiple such areas of interest; so students who really wish to focus on art have even more opportunity to do so of their own initiative.
It is in that initiative to that I find a problem with the fine arts requirement; art cannot and should not be mandated. For it is based in flexibility and freedom of expression, as any sort of culture, it is created and appreciated by those who feel a deep personal passion for the subject.
Likewise, that passion cannot be artificially instilled in those who do not feel a connection; and it should not be forced upon those who wish to grow and learn in other areas.
In the end, I maintain the view; that an education should be built upon the skills and talents of an individual, and how those may be utilized in later life. To confine and regulate classes, at the cost of keeping students from their true passions; is a desecration of the very freedom which is art.
9 comments:
I don't agree with your views on this requirement. The reason why such requirements are dictated are so that students will receive a well-rounded education. When you're in high school, you absolutely should be made to explore other things. If not for the Art class I took my senior year of GSGIS, I wouldn't have taken Art History in college, where I learned an incredible amount of fun information, and would have sorely missed out.
At GSGIS, my talents ran more towards English, Writing, Drama, and History. I was a terrible math and science student-but I had to take the classes, due to specific requirements. Since I was 'forced' to take them, I did learn a lot of useful information that I sometimes refer to in my current life (8 years after graduating).
One final note: Having the requirement in high school prepares you for the requirement in college-Most universities have specific subjects that ALL students must have a certain number of credits in, whatever their major. Complaining about the requirement now won't stop it from being necessary in the future.
~2001 Alumni Grad
I am writing in response to Logan Ferrell's opinion piece from February 27, 2009. I am a member of the MLWGS Class of 2008, and am currently an Oldham Scholar at the University of Richmond, where I intend to major in Leadership Studies while minoring in Business and Theatre with a concentration in Arts Management.
While I was glad to see that Ferrell conceded the necessity for some “universal requirements,” I must say that I was shocked to read the remainder of his letter. While it is understandable that students feel the need to select courses that will “best serve them in higher education and the real world,” I fail to understand how education in the arts does not serve students in either of those settings.
Though I was a self-professed “Dramakid,” I opted for Photography. It was an entirely different approach to communication and taught me to see the world from yet another vantage point. The translation of expression from theatre to photography was messy at best, and required the development of a new way of seeing and understanding in order to do good, thoughtful work.
I admittedly have had a lifelong interest in the arts, and as such my opinion may seem a bit biased in that regard. However, there are countless scientific and historical accounts that show us that the arts are a critical part of a well-rounded and meaningful education.
Education in music and music theory help develop a student's mathematic and reasoning abilities. What of all of the efforts of people like Roberta Guaspari (a true story depicted in Music of the Heart, starring Meryl Streep) who fought to develop arts programs for inner-city children who had no incentive to go to school or do well, and whose lives were changed by the discipline and commitment required in learning to play a musical instrument?
Perhaps a majority of MLWGS students are motivated on their own, and don't need something “special” to develop admirable and requisite qualities such as commitment and discipline. Scientists and teachers aren't the only ones who value the arts.
Plato (who, I might add, is one of those philosophers that you will not escape in college, I can assure you) is not alone in espousing the idea of a “liberal arts” education; Thomas Jefferson was a proponent of it as well. Both believed that a well-rounded education in all fields was absolutely necessary to develop tomorrow's leaders. Schools like MLWGS are the schools where tomorrow's leaders are trained. The name of the school does imply a focus on “government and international studies,” but it's not by focusing solely on those subject areas that Maggie Walker is known as one of the best high schools in America year after year.
Yes, there are schools for people who wish to focus on the arts. However, those schools do not serve the students that Maggie Walker attracts very well at all. Students at MLWGS are typically gifted “across the board,” and while they may have a strong interest in the arts, they may also have strong interests in politics and biology. That is why MLWGS is so special, and so important: for years, it has been a place where students can pursue their many diverse interests.
In the first place, why complain about one class out of the 32 class slots that one can pursue over the course of four years (up to eight classes per year for four years)? Is it really all that difficult to complete one course? Additionally, if we don't need to require art, why require science? Math? I could tell you four years ago that I had no interest in being a scientist, and yet I was required to take four science courses at MLWGS. It's all a part of becoming a well-rounded, intelligent individual that can interact with and understand the world through a variety of media and methods. Simply the fact that Ferrell doesn't see the value of taking a performing or visual arts class is reason enough to require enrollment in such a course.
Frankly, it seems a bit preposterous to me that in an economic climate in which arts programs are the first to go (you will never see athletics programs cut before arts programs, I guarantee it) there are students complaining about having such wide and encouraged opportunity. Students at MLWGS have more opportunity to explore than students at any other school in the Metro Richmond area, and that freedom should be applauded, protected, and nurtured.
Art is about self-expression and communicating with each other what it is to be human. Some paint, some sing, some act. Art opens dialogue about meaningful and complicated issues that every human being has faced or will confront. If you'd like to live in a world like that of Orwell's 1984, Huxley's Brave New World, or most especially Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, kill the arts. Requiring one arts class in high school is fairly insignificant imposition that offers far more than it inhibits, and provides intelligent, open-minded students one more means to freedom—far from imprisoning them with meaningless requirements.
Give the incredible teachers of the MLWGS visual and performing arts departments a chance—they are undoubtedly some of the best teachers that the school has to offer. By the way, most colleges also have a visual or performing arts requirement, so I suggest, Mr. Ferrell, that you get used to it now—art is here to stay.
Alex Wiles
Class of 2008
I'm an alumni and a Sculpture major at VCU, one of the top sculpture programs in the country and frankly I find this editorial to be ill-thought out.
The idea that the fine arts requirement is at odds with a more academic education shows a lack of creative thinking, on Mr Ferell's part. You can tailor your 'fine art requirement' just as much as the rest of your schedule. Introverted future engineers might benefit from drama classes, so they can better communicate important ideas. They might benefit from a visual art class, to give them the basics of drafting or sketching.
Political science majors could study music to learn how the music affects people's emotions. With a little thought, one can apply at least one of the fine arts to almost any non-arts profession.
Joshua Bennett
Class of 2007
Alex,
Brava for a spirited and logical defense of the fine arts requirement. However, I must take issue with some of your words. A small but significant portion of your argument is phrased in the language and presuppositions of those who seek to de-legitimatize art and arts education:
"...there are countless scientific and historical accounts that show us that the arts are a critical part of a well-rounded and meaningful education.
Education in music and music theory help develop a student's mathematic and reasoning abilities..."
Of course, interdisciplinary reinforcement is a strength. But by couching the argument in terms of art's contributions to other fields of study, you are (inadvertently, I'm sure) perpetuating the attitude that art is somehow outside of the realm of "academics".
No one would seek to justify a science requirement by saying "Advances in scientific technology have paved the way for the creation of new works of art."
No one would seek to justify a history requirement by saying "The study of history enriches our appreciation for the context in which artwork is made."
No one would seek to justify a mathematics requirement by saying "With a background in math, students can better understand the artistic principles of line, shape, and perspective."
By silently assenting to the perceived subordinate role of art, you devalue the most powerful argument in favor of the fine arts: that they are every bit as important as science, history, physical education, mathematics, and language. That the merits of an arts education are complementary to these, but also wholly independent of them. That studying and creating art is its own reward. I'm sure these points are neither new nor disagreeable to you, but when presenting the case for art, it is important to demonstrate that art needs no scientific, historical, or mathematical justification.
Now, to Mr. Ferrell - do you realize how lucky you are to be attending MLWGS? How much greater flexibility you are afforded than the average high school student? You could complain that you are required to take four years of one language and two of another, or you could instead appreciate the fact that MLWGS offers eleven foreign languages to its students. You could bemoan the single arts credit necessary to graduate, or you could appreciate the fact that you will graduate from MLWGS with at the very least 4 credits of Literature, 4 credits of Mathematics, 4 credits of Science, 5 credits of Social Studies, 6 credits of Foreign Language, 2 credits of Health and Physical Education, and 1 credit of Fine Arts.
P.S. If it's academic freedom you're after, consider applying to Brown, whose Open Curriculum has no distribution requirements.
P.P.S. If it's scheduling freedom you're after, consider making the case to eliminate the FIRC requirement.
Jonathan,
You were quite right in saying that "these points are neither new nor disagreeable to you," and you were spot-on with each of your examples of history, mathematics, science and art being of equal value on their own.
Additionally, that portion of my comment was not intended to stand as the mainstay of my argument. In terms of developing said argument, it seemed that linking the arts to fields of study that are more traditionally thought of as rightly "required," it might hook a few "non-believers" such as Ferrell into hearing me out.
As you said, art stands alone and needs no justification in science, history, or any other field. It has a value in and of itself. However, I do believe that most fields of study are generally enriched by examining their relationship to other fields, not when forced but discovered freely. Recently, I've found many connections, oddly enough, between my leadership and theatre studies. At MLWGS, Mr. Wilkes made fantastic use of art of all forms (film, photography, and sculpture to name a few) in the American Historiography class to spur class discussions on the role of such pieces as both actors and mirrors in certain historical contexts.
Thank you for pointing out the danger of my word choice in my original post--it seems that we agree at the heart of the matter!
For some schools, where given the choice kids wouldn't want to take ANY classes, requirements make sense because they provide good guidance for someone still unsure about the applications of their interests and passions. I feel like the standard model of class requirements, not just arts requirements but all class requirements, is not only unnecessary but also counterproductive at MLWGS.
The students at MLWGS are unique because they are responsible enough to determine (with input from friends, family, and counselors) which classes are best for them and their future. They already have a general idea of what their interests are, and what they really don't care for at all. Any class requirements have the potential to restrict the distribution of a students 32 high school classes in a sub-optimal way.
For example, I took two years of Latin and four years of French. A year after I finished each language I couldn't speak them well enough to pass a first year final exam. I have no interests in foreign languages, and I was forced to waste 6 classes on them. There were some classes I missed out on too, like programming, linear algebra, and economics. All of these classes I have already taken in college because I have an interest in them. However, if I had taken these classes in high school I would have three more classes I could take in college. Forcing a weighty language requirement on me prevented me from taking three really interesting elective classes at college that fit my interests and passions.
The bottom line is that each student has an optimal set of 32 classes he can take at MLWGS that will be the most beneficial to him/her later in college, a career, or life in general. Unfortunately, some students' optimal set of classes don't fit within the school's definition of "well rounded" and so they are forced to take a set of classes that is sub-optimal. This applies to students with any range of interests. Some students don't need all the math they are required to take, some students don't need all the arts credits, etc.. MLWGS is very different from other high schools because of the attitude everyone there has about their education. The combined planning power of a student, parents, and counselors at MLWGS can produce a much better education than a one-size-fits-all list of requirements.
I think giving students a well-rounded education is what Maggie Walker is best at. The requirements are one reason why the graduates are so intelligent and can get into great colleges. If I wasn't required to take two years of a second language, I wouldn't have even dreamed of taking Latin. Turns out Latin was a lot of fun. I kept taking it past the requirement. And it got me a lot of recognition to put on that college application: contests, awards, clubs, and the AP score (not to mention SAT boosts). It's still an interest of mine, and it just came in handy academically in my Lit class. In short I agree with Starr.
So what if absolutely none of the many fine arts classes offered by Gov's sounds interesting? Suck it up. Pick one. Most likely you'll enjoy it. If you don't end up finding it interesting, so what? It's school, it's not always going to be enjoyable. The "main purpose of a school such as ours" is not "to provide an environment for students with focused interests" but "to provide broad-based educational opportunities that develop gifted students' understanding of world cultures and languages, as well as the ability to lead, participate, and contribute in a rapidly changing global society." If you're not interested in languages, and the very thought of taking two languages kills you, maybe Governor's isn't the right fit. If you still want to come for the environment even if government and international studies isn't your thing, like I did, trust that the school, which produces some of the best students in the country, knows what it's doing when it draws up a (very broad and very flexible) curriculum. For the record, if I went to the school that had what I was interested in (technology at Deep Run), I would have learned less about my interest that I did at Maggie Walker, I would have had inferior classes in most areas I enjoyed, and I would have had a much more limited curriculum. I went to Maggie Walker in part for the well-rounded education.
These requirements are not about forcing kids who don't want to take classes to take classes. They're about providing a framework to foster a brilliant and successful student body, and that's something they do well. Andrew, how can you assume that Carnegie Mellon would have accepted you if you had an even more heavily math/science schedule, with no languages? Seriously, most schools like that expect that a student having graduated high school should be able to speak more than just English, at least at a basic level. Keep in mind that colleges look at the curriculum a student's high school offers when considering admitting that student. If Maggie Walker told Carnegie Mellon that they had eleven foreign languages, and that you didn't even try any of them, what would that say to Carnegie Mellon?
I have read many of the alumni responses and am in agreement with those who have sought to impart the benefits of diverse education to you. However, I do not think that you should criticize any other area of education until you master or at least work very hard at your own. You evidently have a strong interest in writing and expressing your opinion, yet your article contains many simple grammatical mistakes: split infinitives, random insertions, etc. The fine arts do instill a sense of how to perfect a piece (of music, art, or writing) through hard work and practice. Perhaps you should look to them for guidance.
Alumna, 2007
Logan,
Your piece is a testament to why we need to keep the fine arts requirement. The fine arts requirement is for people, like yourself, who do not appreciate art and would not take a course in it unless forced to. The "artsy" people will take these courses and benefit from them whether they are mandatory or not, but others need a kick in the right direction.
While we are on the topic, I think that Yearbook should fulfill the fine art requirement. You learn graphic design and how to be a good photographer.
P.S. What is the 11th language? Did you add one since I graduated in '07?
Post a Comment