History Talk II

Oh, my, what a rich vein the Doc has opened up. The curmudgeonly bile rises to my throat as I contemplate his words. So much to vituperate, so little time. And so much to comment upon, as well. One of these hours we should talk about what Brookhiser said, and what "We, the People" is all about. But I won't even bother to link to it, yet. We could vituperate about student evaluations. But that would to misdirect good bile. Right now I want to vituperate about talking history to students.

For- Lo! - the Doc is right. Once upon a time I thought that I could seminar them to death. I would be their Socrates, and they would be my little Plato's-- or Alcibiades'. But that doesn't work in history. You have to have a certain base of knowledge, which even the brightest college student now lacks. I well recall trying to explain the investiture controversy of the 11th century to some students (simply put, does the Pope or the King get to appoint bishops?) and ending up 45 minutes later trying to explain the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. You have to build your foundations very deep these days. And you would be a fool to trust a textbook to do so.

This is why we lecture. Not because we prefer it, or are good at it. Simply because high school teachers have forsaken their responsibilities, and left us to build the foundations they should have started. Do I like a seminar? Sure. Love it. But that is now a treat that must be reserved for advanced students...the ones who have heard the lectures. First vegetables, then the dessert. You can't be feeding strawberry shortcake to the malnourished Ethiopian children, can you?

And stay the hell off my lawn!