The Marks of an Educated Man

Alan Simpson (1972-), president of Vassar College, was born in England but became a naturalized citizen of
the United States in 1954. He was educated at Oxford University and Harvard University and was a professor
of history at the University of Chicago from 1946-1964. His books include Puritanism in Old and New England
(1961) and Readings in the Formulation of American Policy (1949), of which he was co-editor.

Simpson’s description of an educated man goes back to the Renaissance ideal that placed equal stress on the
mental, moral, and physical excellence of human beings.

Any education that matters is liberal. All the saving truths and healing graces that distinguish a good
education from a bad one or a full education from a half-empty one are contained in that word. Whatever ups
and downs that term “liberal” suffers in the political vocabulary, it soars above all controversy in the
educational world. In the blackest pits of pedagogy the squirming victim has only to ask, “What’s liberal
about this?” to shame his persecutors. In times past a liberal education set off a free man from a slave or a
gentleman from laborers and artisans. It now distinguishes whatever nourishes the mind and spirit from the
training, which is merely practical, or professional, or from the trivialities which are no training at all. Such an
education involves a combination of knowledge, skills, and standards.

So far as knowledge is concerned, the record is ambiguous. It is sufficiently confused for the fact-filled freak
who excels in quiz shows to have passed himself off in some company as an educated man. More respectable
is the notion that there are some things which every educated man ought to know; but many highly
educated men would cheerfully admit to a vast ignorance, and the framers of curriculums have differed
greatly in the knowledge they prescribe. If there have been times when all the students at school or college
studied the same things, as if it were obvious that without exposure to a common body of knowledge they
would not be educated at all, there have been other times when specialization ran so wild that it might
almost seem as if educated men had abandoned the thought of never talking to each other once their
education was completed.

If knowledge is one of our marks, we can hardly be dogmatic about the kind or the amount. A single fertile
field tilled with care and imagination can probably develop all the instincts of an educated man. However, if
the framer of a curriculum wants to minimize his risks, he can invoke an ancient doctrine which holds that an
educated man ought to know a little about everything and a lot about something.

The “little about everything” is best interpreted these days by those who have given most thought to the sort
of general education an informed individual ought to have. More is required than a sampling of the
introductory courses which specialists offer in their own disciplines. Courses are needed in each of the major
divisions of knowledge – the humanities, the natural sciences, and social sciences- which are organized with
the breadth of view and the imaginative power of competent staffs who understand the needs of interested
amateurs. But, over and above this exciting smattering of knowledge, students should bite deeply into at
least on subject and taste its full flavor. It is not enough to be dilettantes in everything without striving also
to be craftsmen in something.
 If there is some ambiguity about the knowledge an educated man should have, there is none at all about
the skills. The first is simply the training of the mind in the capacity to think clearly. This has always been the
business of education, but the way it is done varies enormously. Marshalling the notes of a lecture in one
experience; the opportunity to argue with a teacher is another. Thinking within an accepted tradition is one
thing; to challenge the tradition itself is another. The best results are achieved when the idea of the
examined life is held firmly before the mind and when the examination is conducted with the zest, rigor, and
freedom which really stretches everyone’ capacities.

The vital aid to clear thought is the habit of approaching everything we hear and everything we are taught to
believe with a certain skepticism. The method of using doubt as an examiner is a familiar one among
scholars and scientists, but it is also the best protection which a citizen has against the cant and humbug
that surround us.

To be able to listen to a phony argument and to see its dishonesty is surely one of the marks of an educated
man. We may not need to be educated to possess some of this quality. A shrewd peasant was always well
enough protected against imposters in the market place, and we have all sorts of businessmen who have
made themselves excellent judges of phoniness without the benefit of a high school diploma; but this kind of
shrewdness goes along without a great deal of credulity. Outside the limited field within which experience has
taught the peasant or the illiterate businessman his lessons, he is often hopelessly gullible.The educated
man, by contrast, has tried to develop a critical faculty for general use, and he likes to think that he is
fortified against imposture in all its forms.

It does not matter for our purposes whether to imposter is a deliberate liar or not. Some are, but the
commonest enemies of mankind are the unconscious frauds. Most salesmen under the intoxication of their
own exuberance seem to believe in what they say. Most experts whose expertise is only a pretentious sham
behave as if they had been solemnly inducted into some kind of priesthood. Very few demagogues are so
cynical as to remain undeceived by their own rhetoric, and some of the worst tyrants in history have been
fatally sincere. We can leave the disentanglement of motives to the students of fraud and error, but we
cannot afford to be taken in by the shams.

We are, of course, surrounded by shams. Until recently the schools were full of them- the notion that
education can be had without tears, that puffed rice is a better intellectual diet than oatmeal, that
adjustment to the group is more important than knowing where the group is going, and that democracy has
made it a sin to separate the sheep from the goats. Mercifully, these are much less evident now than they
were before Sputnik startled us into our wits.

In front of the professor are the shams of the learned fraternity. There is the sham science of the social
scientist who first invented a speech for fuddling thought and then proceeded totell us in his lock jawed way
what we already knew. There is the sham humanism of the humanist who wonders why civilization that once
feasted at his table is repelled by the shredded and desiccated dishes that often lie on it today. There is the
sham message of the physical scientist who feels that his mastery of nature has made him an expert in
politics and morals, and there are all the other brands of hokum which have furnished material for satire
since the first quacks established themselves in the first cloisters.
If this is true of universities with their solemn vows and limited temptations, how much truer is it for the
naughty world outside, where the prizes are far more dazzling and the only protection against humbug is the
skepticism of the ordinary voter, customer, reader, listener, and viewer? Of course, the follies of human
nature are not going to be exorcised by anything that the educator can do, and I am not sure that they
would want to exorcise them if he could. There is something irresistibly funny about the old Adam, and life
would be duller without his antics. But they ought to be kept within bounds. We are none the better for not
recognizing a clown when we see one.

The other basic skill is simply the art of self-expression in speech and on paper. A man is educated who has
mastered the elements of clean forcible prose and picked up some relish for style.

It is a curious fact that we style everything in this country- our cars, our homes, our clothes- except our
minds. They still chug along like a Model T- rugged, persevering, but far from graceful.

No doubt this appeal for style, like the appeal for clear thinking, can be carried too far. There was once an
American who said that the only important thing in life was “to set a chime of words ringing in a few
fastidious minds.” As far as can be learned, he left this country in a huff to tinkle his little bell in a foreign
land. Most of us would think that he lacked a sense of proportion. After all, the political history of this
country is full of good judgment expressed in bad prose, and the business history has smashed through to
some of its grandest triumphs across acres of broken syntax. But we can discard some of these frontier
manners without becoming absurdly precious.

The road ahead bristles with obstacles. There is the reluctance of many people to use one word where they
can get away with a half dozen or a word of one syllable if they can find a longer one. No one has ever told
them about the first rule of English composition: every slaughtered syllable is a good deed. The most
persuasive teachers of this maxim are undoubtedly the commercial firms that offer a thousand dollars for the
completion of a slogan in twenty-five words. They are the only people who are putting id = a handsome
premium on economy of statement.

There is the decay of the habit of memorizing good prose and good poetry in the years when tastes are
being formed. It is very difficult to write a bad sentence if the Bible has been a steady companion and very
easy to imagine a well turned phrase if the ear has been tuned on enough poetry.

There is the monstrous proliferation of gobbledy-gook in government, business, and the professions. Take
this horrible example of verbal smog.

It is inherent to motivational phenomena that there is a drive for more gratification than is realistically
possible, on any level or in any type of personality organization. Likewise it is inherent to the world of objects
that not all potentially desirable opportunities can be realized within a human life span. Therefore, any
personality must involve an organization that allocates opportunities for gratification that systematizes
precedence relative to the limited possibilities. The possibilities of gratification, simultaneously or
sequentially, of all need-dispositions are severely limited by the structure of the object system and by the
intra systemic incompatibility of the consequences of gratifying them all.

What this smothered soul is trying to say is simply, “We must pick and choose, because we cannot have
everything we want.”

Finally, there is the universal employment of the objective test as part of the price which has to be paid for
mass education. Nothing but the difficulty of finding enough readers to mark essays can condone a system
which reduces a literate student to the ignoble necessity of “blackening the answer space” when he might be
giving his mind and pen free play. Though we have managed to get some benefits for these examinations,
the simple fact remains that the shapely prose of the Declaration of Independence or the “Gettysburg
Address” was never learned under an educational system which employed objective tests. It was mastered
by people who took writing seriously, who had good models in front of them, good critics to judge them, and
an endless capacity for taking pains. Without that sort of discipline, the arts of self-expression will remain as
mutilated as they are now.

The standards which mark an educated man can be expressed in terms of three tests:

The first is a matter of sophistication. Emerson put it nicely when he talked about getting rid of “the
nonsense of our wigwams.” The wigwam may be an uncultivated home, a suburban conformity, a crass
patriotism, or a cramped dogma. Some of this nonsense withers in the class room. More of it rubs off by
simple mixing with people, provided they are drawn from a wide range of backgrounds and exposed within a
good college to a civilized tradition. An educated an can be judged by the quality of his prejudices. There is a
refined nonsense which survives the raw nonsense which Emersion was talking about.

The second test is a matter of moral values. Though we all know individuals who have contrived to be both
highly educated and highly immoral, and though we have all heard of periods in history when the subtlest
resources of wit and sophistication were employed to make a mockery of simple values,we do not really
believe that a college is dong its job when it is simply multiplying the number of educated scoundrels,
hucksters, and triflers.

The health of society depends on simple virtues like honesty, decency, courage, and public spirit. There are
forces in human nature which constantly tend to corrupt them, and every age has its own vices. The worst
feature of ours is probably the obsession with violence. Up to some such time as 1914, it was possible to
believe in a kind of moral progress. The quality which distinguished the Victorian from the Elizabethan was a
sensitivity to suffering and a revulsion from cruelty which greatly enlarged the idea of human dignity. Since
1914 we have steadily brutalized ourselves. The horrors of modern war, the bestialities of modern political
creeds, the uncontrollable vices of modern cities, the favorite themes of modern novelists- all have conspired
to degrade us. Some of the corruption is blatant. The authors of the best sellers, after exhausting all the
possibilities of sex in its normal and abnormal forms and all the variation of alcoholism and drug addiction,
are about to invade the recesses of the hospitals. A clinical study of a hero undergoing the irrigation of his
colon is about all there is left to gratify a morbid appetite.
Some of the corruption is insidious. A national columnist recently wrote an article in praise of cockfighting.
He had visited a cockfight in the company of Ernest Hemingway. After pointing out that Hemingway had
made bullfighting respectable, he proceeded to describe the terrible beauty of fierce indomitable birds trained
to kill each other for the excitement of the spectators. Needless to say, there used to be a terrible beauty
about Christians defending themselves against lions or about heretics being burned at the stake, and there
are still parts of the world where a public execution is regarded as a richly satisfying feast. But for three or
four centuries the West taught itself to resist these excitements in the interest of a moral idea.

Educators are needlessly squeamish about their duty to uphold moral values and needlessly perplexed about
how to implant them. The corruptions of our times are sufficient warning that we cannot afford to abandon
the duty to the home and the churches, and the capacity which many institutions have shown to do their
duty in a liberal spirit is a sufficient guaranty against bigotry.

Finally, there is the test imposed by the unique challenge of our own times. We are not unique in suffering
from moral confusions- these crises are a familiar story- but we are unique in the tremendous acceleration of
the rate of social change and in the tremendous risk of a catastrophic end to all our hopes. We cannot afford
educated men who have every grace except the gift for survival. An indispensable mark of the modern
educated man is the kind of versatile, flexible mind that can deal with new and explosive conditions.

With this reserve, there is little in this profile which has not been familiar for centuries. Unfortunately, the
description which one sufficed to suggest its personality has been debased in journalistic currency. The “well-
rounded man” has become the organization man, or the man who is so well rounded that he rolls wherever
he is pushed. The humanists who invented the idea and preached it for centuries would recoil in contempt
from any such notion. They understood the possibilities of the whole man and wanted an educational system
which would give the many sides of his nature some chance to develop in harmony. They thought it a good
idea to mix the wisdom of the world with the learning of the cloister, to develop the body as well as the mind,
to pay a great deal of attention to character, and to the spacious idea which offered every hospitality to
creative energy. Anyone who is seriously interested in liberal education must begin by rediscovering it.