Proof of Educational Dumbing Down.

[Anonymouse]

Here is a test that 11 year olds took in 1898. Think about this.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/spectator2/spec515.html

[bell-the-cat]

Five horses and 28 sheep cost £126 14s., and 16 sheep cost £22 8s.

Ahhh, those must have been the days when you could have had a three course meal, an evening at the music hall, a night with an underage prostitute, and still have change from a sixpence.

[loseyourname]

Not that I disagree with you, but in all fairness, I doubt more than 5% of the childhood population actually went to school back then.

[Anonymouse]

Not that I disagree with you, but in all fairness, I doubt more than 5% of the childhood population actually went to school back then.

Really? I find it difficult to believe you if you can't provide some data.

[!EEK]

I don't think it's true. In the end of the 19th century schools proliferated and some few catholic schools were free. It's true that it was generally in the cities but Great Britain had thousands of Hedge Schools in the country side. I would say a thick 40% of the kids where going to school back then

[patlajan]

Really? I find it difficult to believe you if you can't provide some data.

You find everything difficult to believe. Look up the literacy rate in 1989. And the % of people with a post secondary education.

[Sip]

I don't know about the average masses but my feeling is the smart are getting smarter and the dumb are getting dumber as the decades go by.

But how is that exam a "proof" of anything? For all we know, all those who took that exam, even though they were probably a very very small fraction of the very elite that got to go to a good school, failed it. Where is the performance data on those exams?

[Anonymouse]

You are all missing the point. Compare a test for 11 year olds from then, to what 11 years olds get now. This isn't about results or anything, it is the content. And by the content the 11 year olds of 1898 were much more adept than the ones now. It's like the Pilgrims who eventually became the founders of this nation, these were people versed in ancient Greek, Latin, rhetoric, philosophy, and compare that to the politicians of the today.

[Anonymouse]

You find everything difficult to believe. Look up the literacy rate in 1989. And the % of people with a post secondary education.

Why don't you offer it eggplant? I'm waiting.

[loseyourname]

Okay, I checked the US Census Bureau site (which took a while - I hate that site) and according to them, these are the numbers:

In 1900, 10% of kids age 5-14 were enrolled in school, and 8% of 18-24 year-olds were high school graduates.

In 2000, 97% of kids 5-14 were enrolled in school, and 75% of 18-24 year-olds were high school graduates.

The only point is that while the education of an 11 year-old may not be as rigorous as it once was, society as a whole is way, way more educated now than it was 100 years ago. Furthermore, the education of elites really shouldn't be measured by what they learn as a child - it should be measured by what they learn, period. I would show more concern if you can produce evidence that the college education of today's brightest students is significantly less rigorous than the college education of yesterday's brightest. I can say for certain that it is not in math and science, only because our mathematic and scientific knowledge has increased exponentially in the last hundred years, giving us far more knowledge to work with than our forefathers. Still, one might lament the lack of traditional liberal educations at most of our better institutions. The good thing there is that we have so many more colleges to choose from now, and some certainly can give you a very rigorous liberal education that includes extensive study of many viewpoints on the classic questions. Thomas Aquinas College, St. John's College, Reed College, the University of Virginia and others all have such programs and many include great books programs designed to emulate the classical education of the Greek and medieval European elites.