Evening star., 1960-08-21

tered in the first eight years
Of schooling.
Russia's real threat to us
will come through their edu-
cational and not through their
military processes. Military
systems and techniques are
transitory-they now change
every few years. An intelligent
and well-educated body of
citizens is something you will
have forever.
This is where the Russians
are smarter than we. They
have recognized the full value
Of a good education and they
are hellbent on giving it to as
many of their youngsters as
they can coax into taking it.
This is about the best COM
parison I can make: Almost
half Of Russia's children,
graduating at II after but 10
years of schooling, do as we'll
by the record-aS many of
our children after IA years of
schooling, two of them in
college.
Reject MediOcrity
Neither I nor other critics
have ever recommended that
we take over the Russian edu-
cational system. We do urge
that we consider Russian edu-
cational achievements as the
minimum standard for our own
educational objectives.
We warn 1t would be suicidal
If we allowed scholastic levels
in our schools permanently to
drop below this minimum
standard. We fatty reject the
claim that since ours is mass
education it must, therefore,
be mediocre. or that demo-
cratic education can never be
as good as education in an
authoritarian state.
What I have said about Rus
sia applies even more so to
the Western European nations.
Abroad, liberal education
comparing favorably with what
Americans acquire in Is years
of school and college takes
from IL to 13 years. Euro
peans are by that much ahead
OF Americans when they begin
to study for a learned" pro-
feSSion, such as medicine or
law.
I find it personally humiliat-
Ing that most European uni
versities demand bachelor of
arts degree of Americans wish
ing to matriculate, while they
admit all Europeans with a
maturity" certificate which is
obtained at the end of the
higher secondary school. This
school achieves these superior
results through better teach
ing, better curriculum, much
tougher classroom work and
homework and early separating
of the talented child from the
average.
Backs Separate Schools
We seem bemused by the
claims of the educationists that
it is "undemocratic" for other
Western nations to separate
their children after elemen-
tary school and to put them
into different types of second
ary schools according to their
mental abilities and vocational
aims.
We do not say it is "undem-
ocratic" that nurses go to
nursing school and doctors to
medical school, and that each
obtains a different diploma
Nor do we send enlisted per-
sonnel to the same schools as
officers.
Why do we get angry at
Europeans for wedding out the
dullards from the talented
children and sending them to
separate secondary schools?
What good would it do the
dullards to be admitted to a
school where they would just
sit around and understand
nothing? What does it benefit
them to be 'given diplomas
which stand for nothing but g
given number of hours spent
sitting at a school desk?
What is democratic about
penalizing God-given talent by
letting it go to waste so aver.
age children won't feel a sense
of inferiority?
1t may be beguiling in theory
to think of all our children
going to school together. But
will it really serve their besr
interests to send them tt
schools where the child with ar
10 of 10 sits beside one with
an 10 of ITO, and where tn,
morally weak child freely asso,
ciateS with the child who ha.
been carefully raised to dis.
tinguish right from wrong anc
to conduct himself responsibly'
No One Profits
This makes no sense to me
Obviously, no child will receiv
an education best suited to hi