Vanishing Context: The Extinction of Liberal Arts Education
Note: This essay was first published in TELICOM, the journal of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE), Vol. XV, No. 1 (October/November, 2000). Please contact the author if you desire a copy with complete notes.
In June 1972, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education issued a report entitled “Reform On Campus: Changing Students, Changing Academic Programs.” The report made observations and recommendations concerning several facets of higher education at that time, including student and faculty satisfaction, diversity, teaching effectiveness, relevancy of the curriculum, and the state of ‘general education,’ which it preferred to call the “broad learning experience.” The authors of the report clearly sounded a note of alarm:
One of the hallmarks of higher education, historically, in the United States has been its emphasis on what has been called a “liberal” or “general” education, on preparing the student for citizenship and for the noncareer aspects of life. But general education is now in trouble. What was once our greatest success is now becoming our greatest failure. A tendency is now developing that urges that general education be abandoned altogether and that students be allowed to take anything they want–provided they take one or two years in doing so. The Commission regrets this new tendency to relinquish concern for general education.
Unfortunately, this very strong statement, found in the digest of the report, is not reflected in the language of the relevant recommendation:
The Commission recommends that consideration should be given to establishing campus by campus a series of coherent options for a broad learning experience among which students may choose (p. 45).
The above tepid recommendation hardly rises to the level of urgency of the first quote, and, in fact, seems to contradict it. In the first instance the Commission “regrets this new tendency to relinquish concern for general education,” which is evidenced by students being “allowed to take anything they want.” In the second passage, the ‘concern’ seems to have completely evaporated, and “general education” is replaced with the euphemism “broad learning experience,” with the further recommendation for “coherent options...among which students may choose.” Why the seeming reversal within the context of the very same report?
The answer lies in the another subject area of the report: “The ‘Relevant’ Curriculum.” Quoting once again from the digest of the report:
A good working definition of relevance might be: courses that relate directly to actual personal interests of students and to current societal problems. Relevance includes special programs as, for example, those that relate to ethnic groups, to the new emphasis on creative arts, to the establishment of more problem-oriented courses, to new concerns for the environment, and to the student’s understanding of himself and his place in society.
In fairness, it should be observed that the Commission attempted to make broad recommendations and identify general trends. The report seems to advocate a balance between the continuation and strengthening of general education, while embracing additional courses with a more pragmatic basis. Unfortunately, it appears that in the almost three decades since the report, the “Relevant Curriculum” has gained the upper hand at the considerable expense of general education (or “the broad learning experience”).
We now find ourselves in the midst of a true crisis in higher education, which extends to secondary, and even primary, grades. The teaching of a common core of knowledge and academic skills has been largely supplanted by less rigorous courses, highly specialized vocational training, and courses advocating particular minority perspectives or social agendas. It is important to state that all of these courses and perspectives do indeed have a place in academe. The crisis stems not from their inclusion, but rather from the lack of an academic and cultural framework within which more complex and even controversial material may be interpreted.
As a case in point, consider the difficulty of teaching any specialized, discipline-specific history course without a general appreciation of the history of western civilization or the world in general. I face this problem constantly in teaching music history, a two-semester sequence covering the history of music in western civilization from ancient Greece to the present day. Of course, given only two semesters, the depth of the course content cannot be extensive, but a broad overview can theoretically be achieved. However, the success of establishing this broad overview depends heavily on the ability of students to relate discipline-specific developments and important historical figures to an underlying familiarity with western civilization.
Increasingly, students enter the university without even a rudimentary mastery of the history of western civilization. Consequently, much more time is spent teaching history in general, and the effectiveness of discipline-specific instruction is severely limited. Instead of focusing on composers, musical genres, and larger aesthetic trends, I must teach the significance of the Norman Conquest, the invention of the printing press, and the French Revolution. The teaching of music history becomes an incidental adjunct to what is now essentially a remedial course in western civilization.
While the above admittedly subjective account may be dismissed as unscientific, a recent study by the National Association of Scholars is more compelling. In their 1999 report, “The Dissolution of General Education: 1914-1993,” the subjective suspicions of many faculty members are supported by a disturbing trend in the reduction of general education requirements, particularly in the last thirty years:
The prevalent unwillingness to set priorities within general education programs, together with the growing disinclination to insist on rigorous standards for completing them, suggest that undergraduate general education has become substantially devalued as an institutional objective. It also indicates that most institutions are no longer seriously committed to ensuring that their students are exposed to broad surveys of basic subject matter.
In drawing the above conclusions, the NAS examined the course catalogs of fifty top-ranked colleges, evaluating the curricular requirements leading to a bachelor of arts degree for each of four years spanning the twentieth century (1914, 1939, 1964, and 1993). Curricula were evaluated based on three principal criteria: structure, content, and rigor.
The findings indicated that a steady degradation of structure (i.e., limitation of choices allowed in fulfilling the general education requirement) occurred between 1914 and 1964, but that between 1964 and 1993 certain aspects of structure (in particular, courses requiring prerequisites) all but collapsed. In examining content, a similar steep decline between 1964 and 1993 (following a gradual decline between 1914 and 1964) was revealed in the number of institutions requiring courses in the key areas of English Composition, Foreign Languages, History, Literature, Philosophy, Social Science, Natural Science, and Mathematics.
Perhaps most distressing was the clear evidence of precipitously falling academic standards, termed “rigor” by the NAS report. A trend toward the creation of special courses for “non-majors” in math and the sciences has been especially evident between 1964 and 1993, and exceptions from any number of academic requirements (foreign language, mathematics, natural sciences, and even English composition) have become far more frequent since 1964. Also of note was the fact that some 50 percent of the schools examined in 1939 and 1964 required a comprehensive examination or thesis for all students receiving a bachelor of arts degree. This number had been reduced to 12 percent by 1993.
The general trends identified in the NAS report are echoed in the affiliated Arizona Association of Scholars report of October 2000: “The Dissolution of General Education: A Review of Arizona’s Three State Universities’ Programs of Study and Degree Requirements.” The concerns identified in the NAS report, particularly high percentages of student-selected courses and pervasive substitution of less rigorous courses to satisfy relaxed general education requirements, are clearly in evidence. In fact, the only courses impossible to avoid in the curriculum for general studies degrees at Arizona State University are English composition and multiculturalism. Northern Arizona University and the University of Arizona fared only slightly better, requiring 3 credit hours of math and 4 credit hours of lab sciences at NAU, and 3 courses in natural sciences and one course in mathematics at the U of A.
The picture painted by the above examinations of both public and private colleges is that of an ‘educational buffet,’ where students may pick and choose their courses based purely on personal interest or the path of least resistance. And, to continue the analogy, the ‘nutritional value’ of their selections is wanting. An additional contributing factor has been, in recent years, the increasing tendency to present higher education as a “product” rather than a complex process. An increasing number of schools offer four-year graduation “guarantees” and emphasize an ever-growing array of extracurricular programs, athletics perhaps most visible among them. American colleges and universities have, in many respects, become four-year resorts for older adolescents, marketed under the thin veneer of an evaporating educational mission. Fortunately, not all colleges and universities have succumbed completely to the notion of education as product, but an almost herculean effort will be necessary to reverse the trend.
Much would be gained by replacing the paradigm of education commodity with education community. Universities evolved from the close-knit, religiously-grounded scholastic communities of the Middle Ages. While religious associations are today only appropriate in the cases of private institutions with particular religious affiliations, the concept of a community of learners is as relevant today as it was nearly one thousand years ago. In fact, the idea stretches back at least to Plato’s Academy, founded in 387 BCE (and which lasted until its suppression by the Emperor Justinian in 529 CE, nearly 1000 years later). The amazing cohesion of the Athenian Platonic and Neoplatonic schools stems from a commonality of purpose, participation in specific rituals and ceremonies, and a mutual respect for each student’s individual process of development, while acknowledging the accomplishments and wisdom of the Academy’s teachers. The presently fashionable term “student-centered” is perhaps best understood in the context of a learning community. In other words, “student-centered” does not equal “student-run” or “student-designed.” Rather, it should reflect a fundamental concern for the development of the student as an independent thinker and respect for the student as a member of a learning community.
We find echoes of Neoplatonism in many traditions, including Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Here is perhaps the finest example of a culturally homogeneous educational institution embracing students from all ethnic backgrounds and contributing in turn to a multitude of cultural heritages.
Returning to the present, some may use the weakening of general education as ammunition against multiculturalism in higher education. Opponents of multiculturalism fear a weakening of the “common culture” of America - a culture that had been so successful in the wake of World War II. The proponents, however, sought (and still seek) to address fundamental imbalances in the power structure of American society. Clinging to their entrenched positions, both groups have been guilty of inconsistency. As Benjamin Baez observes:
In retrospect, the concerns voiced on both sides were fraught with contradictions. On the one hand, the opponents of curricular change, in lamenting threats to the American cultural tradition, seemed oblivious to the diversity of that tradition. On the other, proponents of curricular change sought to put forth alternatives to the Western tradition in the undergraduate curriculum. But because they saw the alternatives as just as valid as the Western tradition, their actions amounted to an attempt to replace it altogether. In other words, they advocated for the equality with Western tradition of the texts and values of non-Western cultures, as well as those of women, homosexuals, the physically disabled, and other “others.”
Realistically, American institutions of higher education must understand that they are products of an essentially western cultural heritage. As such, an overview of that heritage is certainly relevant in the undergraduate curriculum, and this tradition is closely tied to the so-called ‘liberal arts,’ those aspects of learning necessary for the education of a free citizen (liber meaning “free”). Regardless of the diversity of the society, the need for broadly educated citizens remains constant. Multicultural and social issues courses can be more effectively interpreted when presented in the context of at least a basic understanding of history, aesthetics, literature, mathematics, and science. Without a firm foundation, such courses themselves become the student’s only context, and eclipse a more measured understanding of their content.
In addition to a return to the liberal arts in the general education curriculum, including a carefully designed core of sequenced courses, American colleges and universities must work to disallow course substitutions and exemptions which weaken the integrity of the general education core. Further, the concept of ‘scaffolding,’ now being touted in public education as a ‘new’ idea, must be returned to general education; courses must be presented in a logical sequence so that foundational knowledge and concepts lead naturally to more complex topics and elaboration. Such a logical sequence is, of course, not new at all, but again may be traced to Platonic educational theory, where a noetic model is espoused (i.e., pedagogy which parallels cognitive development).
Finally, there must be absolute standards required for graduation. At a bare minimum, the general education core must be satisfactorily passed without course exemptions and substitutions. The re-introduction of comprehensive examinations and/or theses as a graduation requirement would be a further valuable step. Some schools require theses or senior projects for honors programs or in specific courses of study, but their absence in all baccalaureate curricula seriously undermines the credibility of the degrees in which they are not required.
The last thirty years have seen a critical weakening in the structure and rigor of general education requirements in American higher education. In making higher education a product, college administrators have been, in some ways, a catalyst to this process, for in a business model of education, the sheer number of “consumers” is the primary concern. However, education is a more complex process, requiring an understanding of the academy as an educational community. As such, one must consider first how students fit into and contribute to that community, and how the community supports their individual development. At the core of the experience should lie a commitment to mastery of the rudimentary academic skills and knowledge relevant to western society.
In advocating a renewed emphasis on classical literature in Irish education, D. R. Howlett wrote in 1996:
This is not an exercise in quaint antiquarianism. Nor is it a model for an intellectual theme park. It is a plan for recovery of elements of the past that can enrich the present and empower the young to cope with the future. There is little point in teaching information or technology which will be obsolete by the time students leave school. There is much point in teaching children how to learn, to remember, to think, to design, to tell stories, to compose verse and prose and music, to present arguments forcefully and elegantly, by exposing them to durable works of art by their own ancestors which are affective and effective.
While Howlett refers to “ancestors” in the genealogical sense in advocating the study of Latin texts from Celtic sources, we should also consider the wisdom of recognizing the great minds of western civilization as our intellectual ancestors. More importantly, we must embrace the ideal of teaching our students how to learn, how to think, and how to create. Without these fundamental skills, they will be ill prepared to navigate the increasingly complex modern world. Without the broad context established by a rigorous and well ordered general education curriculum, specific information finds no meaningful context, and the fleeting details, memorized merely for an examination, are soon lost. Plato warned against the degeneration of education “from an effort to acquire culture into a heaping up of multifarious information (polypragmosyne).” It is not surprising that in our complex society, “multifarious information” increasingly holds sway in the educational process. However, if we are to truly serve students best, we must first be concerned with the skill of thinking itself. Fortunately, a fundamental understanding of how best to hone this skill has existed for well over two millennia. In light of this, reversing the adverse trends of the last thirty years seems a bit less daunting.
-PMÓS
In June 1972, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education issued a report entitled “Reform On Campus: Changing Students, Changing Academic Programs.” The report made observations and recommendations concerning several facets of higher education at that time, including student and faculty satisfaction, diversity, teaching effectiveness, relevancy of the curriculum, and the state of ‘general education,’ which it preferred to call the “broad learning experience.” The authors of the report clearly sounded a note of alarm:
One of the hallmarks of higher education, historically, in the United States has been its emphasis on what has been called a “liberal” or “general” education, on preparing the student for citizenship and for the noncareer aspects of life. But general education is now in trouble. What was once our greatest success is now becoming our greatest failure. A tendency is now developing that urges that general education be abandoned altogether and that students be allowed to take anything they want–provided they take one or two years in doing so. The Commission regrets this new tendency to relinquish concern for general education.
Unfortunately, this very strong statement, found in the digest of the report, is not reflected in the language of the relevant recommendation:
The Commission recommends that consideration should be given to establishing campus by campus a series of coherent options for a broad learning experience among which students may choose (p. 45).
The above tepid recommendation hardly rises to the level of urgency of the first quote, and, in fact, seems to contradict it. In the first instance the Commission “regrets this new tendency to relinquish concern for general education,” which is evidenced by students being “allowed to take anything they want.” In the second passage, the ‘concern’ seems to have completely evaporated, and “general education” is replaced with the euphemism “broad learning experience,” with the further recommendation for “coherent options...among which students may choose.” Why the seeming reversal within the context of the very same report?
The answer lies in the another subject area of the report: “The ‘Relevant’ Curriculum.” Quoting once again from the digest of the report:
A good working definition of relevance might be: courses that relate directly to actual personal interests of students and to current societal problems. Relevance includes special programs as, for example, those that relate to ethnic groups, to the new emphasis on creative arts, to the establishment of more problem-oriented courses, to new concerns for the environment, and to the student’s understanding of himself and his place in society.
In fairness, it should be observed that the Commission attempted to make broad recommendations and identify general trends. The report seems to advocate a balance between the continuation and strengthening of general education, while embracing additional courses with a more pragmatic basis. Unfortunately, it appears that in the almost three decades since the report, the “Relevant Curriculum” has gained the upper hand at the considerable expense of general education (or “the broad learning experience”).
We now find ourselves in the midst of a true crisis in higher education, which extends to secondary, and even primary, grades. The teaching of a common core of knowledge and academic skills has been largely supplanted by less rigorous courses, highly specialized vocational training, and courses advocating particular minority perspectives or social agendas. It is important to state that all of these courses and perspectives do indeed have a place in academe. The crisis stems not from their inclusion, but rather from the lack of an academic and cultural framework within which more complex and even controversial material may be interpreted.
As a case in point, consider the difficulty of teaching any specialized, discipline-specific history course without a general appreciation of the history of western civilization or the world in general. I face this problem constantly in teaching music history, a two-semester sequence covering the history of music in western civilization from ancient Greece to the present day. Of course, given only two semesters, the depth of the course content cannot be extensive, but a broad overview can theoretically be achieved. However, the success of establishing this broad overview depends heavily on the ability of students to relate discipline-specific developments and important historical figures to an underlying familiarity with western civilization.
Increasingly, students enter the university without even a rudimentary mastery of the history of western civilization. Consequently, much more time is spent teaching history in general, and the effectiveness of discipline-specific instruction is severely limited. Instead of focusing on composers, musical genres, and larger aesthetic trends, I must teach the significance of the Norman Conquest, the invention of the printing press, and the French Revolution. The teaching of music history becomes an incidental adjunct to what is now essentially a remedial course in western civilization.
While the above admittedly subjective account may be dismissed as unscientific, a recent study by the National Association of Scholars is more compelling. In their 1999 report, “The Dissolution of General Education: 1914-1993,” the subjective suspicions of many faculty members are supported by a disturbing trend in the reduction of general education requirements, particularly in the last thirty years:
The prevalent unwillingness to set priorities within general education programs, together with the growing disinclination to insist on rigorous standards for completing them, suggest that undergraduate general education has become substantially devalued as an institutional objective. It also indicates that most institutions are no longer seriously committed to ensuring that their students are exposed to broad surveys of basic subject matter.
In drawing the above conclusions, the NAS examined the course catalogs of fifty top-ranked colleges, evaluating the curricular requirements leading to a bachelor of arts degree for each of four years spanning the twentieth century (1914, 1939, 1964, and 1993). Curricula were evaluated based on three principal criteria: structure, content, and rigor.
The findings indicated that a steady degradation of structure (i.e., limitation of choices allowed in fulfilling the general education requirement) occurred between 1914 and 1964, but that between 1964 and 1993 certain aspects of structure (in particular, courses requiring prerequisites) all but collapsed. In examining content, a similar steep decline between 1964 and 1993 (following a gradual decline between 1914 and 1964) was revealed in the number of institutions requiring courses in the key areas of English Composition, Foreign Languages, History, Literature, Philosophy, Social Science, Natural Science, and Mathematics.
Perhaps most distressing was the clear evidence of precipitously falling academic standards, termed “rigor” by the NAS report. A trend toward the creation of special courses for “non-majors” in math and the sciences has been especially evident between 1964 and 1993, and exceptions from any number of academic requirements (foreign language, mathematics, natural sciences, and even English composition) have become far more frequent since 1964. Also of note was the fact that some 50 percent of the schools examined in 1939 and 1964 required a comprehensive examination or thesis for all students receiving a bachelor of arts degree. This number had been reduced to 12 percent by 1993.
The general trends identified in the NAS report are echoed in the affiliated Arizona Association of Scholars report of October 2000: “The Dissolution of General Education: A Review of Arizona’s Three State Universities’ Programs of Study and Degree Requirements.” The concerns identified in the NAS report, particularly high percentages of student-selected courses and pervasive substitution of less rigorous courses to satisfy relaxed general education requirements, are clearly in evidence. In fact, the only courses impossible to avoid in the curriculum for general studies degrees at Arizona State University are English composition and multiculturalism. Northern Arizona University and the University of Arizona fared only slightly better, requiring 3 credit hours of math and 4 credit hours of lab sciences at NAU, and 3 courses in natural sciences and one course in mathematics at the U of A.
The picture painted by the above examinations of both public and private colleges is that of an ‘educational buffet,’ where students may pick and choose their courses based purely on personal interest or the path of least resistance. And, to continue the analogy, the ‘nutritional value’ of their selections is wanting. An additional contributing factor has been, in recent years, the increasing tendency to present higher education as a “product” rather than a complex process. An increasing number of schools offer four-year graduation “guarantees” and emphasize an ever-growing array of extracurricular programs, athletics perhaps most visible among them. American colleges and universities have, in many respects, become four-year resorts for older adolescents, marketed under the thin veneer of an evaporating educational mission. Fortunately, not all colleges and universities have succumbed completely to the notion of education as product, but an almost herculean effort will be necessary to reverse the trend.
Much would be gained by replacing the paradigm of education commodity with education community. Universities evolved from the close-knit, religiously-grounded scholastic communities of the Middle Ages. While religious associations are today only appropriate in the cases of private institutions with particular religious affiliations, the concept of a community of learners is as relevant today as it was nearly one thousand years ago. In fact, the idea stretches back at least to Plato’s Academy, founded in 387 BCE (and which lasted until its suppression by the Emperor Justinian in 529 CE, nearly 1000 years later). The amazing cohesion of the Athenian Platonic and Neoplatonic schools stems from a commonality of purpose, participation in specific rituals and ceremonies, and a mutual respect for each student’s individual process of development, while acknowledging the accomplishments and wisdom of the Academy’s teachers. The presently fashionable term “student-centered” is perhaps best understood in the context of a learning community. In other words, “student-centered” does not equal “student-run” or “student-designed.” Rather, it should reflect a fundamental concern for the development of the student as an independent thinker and respect for the student as a member of a learning community.
We find echoes of Neoplatonism in many traditions, including Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Here is perhaps the finest example of a culturally homogeneous educational institution embracing students from all ethnic backgrounds and contributing in turn to a multitude of cultural heritages.
Returning to the present, some may use the weakening of general education as ammunition against multiculturalism in higher education. Opponents of multiculturalism fear a weakening of the “common culture” of America - a culture that had been so successful in the wake of World War II. The proponents, however, sought (and still seek) to address fundamental imbalances in the power structure of American society. Clinging to their entrenched positions, both groups have been guilty of inconsistency. As Benjamin Baez observes:
In retrospect, the concerns voiced on both sides were fraught with contradictions. On the one hand, the opponents of curricular change, in lamenting threats to the American cultural tradition, seemed oblivious to the diversity of that tradition. On the other, proponents of curricular change sought to put forth alternatives to the Western tradition in the undergraduate curriculum. But because they saw the alternatives as just as valid as the Western tradition, their actions amounted to an attempt to replace it altogether. In other words, they advocated for the equality with Western tradition of the texts and values of non-Western cultures, as well as those of women, homosexuals, the physically disabled, and other “others.”
Realistically, American institutions of higher education must understand that they are products of an essentially western cultural heritage. As such, an overview of that heritage is certainly relevant in the undergraduate curriculum, and this tradition is closely tied to the so-called ‘liberal arts,’ those aspects of learning necessary for the education of a free citizen (liber meaning “free”). Regardless of the diversity of the society, the need for broadly educated citizens remains constant. Multicultural and social issues courses can be more effectively interpreted when presented in the context of at least a basic understanding of history, aesthetics, literature, mathematics, and science. Without a firm foundation, such courses themselves become the student’s only context, and eclipse a more measured understanding of their content.
In addition to a return to the liberal arts in the general education curriculum, including a carefully designed core of sequenced courses, American colleges and universities must work to disallow course substitutions and exemptions which weaken the integrity of the general education core. Further, the concept of ‘scaffolding,’ now being touted in public education as a ‘new’ idea, must be returned to general education; courses must be presented in a logical sequence so that foundational knowledge and concepts lead naturally to more complex topics and elaboration. Such a logical sequence is, of course, not new at all, but again may be traced to Platonic educational theory, where a noetic model is espoused (i.e., pedagogy which parallels cognitive development).
Finally, there must be absolute standards required for graduation. At a bare minimum, the general education core must be satisfactorily passed without course exemptions and substitutions. The re-introduction of comprehensive examinations and/or theses as a graduation requirement would be a further valuable step. Some schools require theses or senior projects for honors programs or in specific courses of study, but their absence in all baccalaureate curricula seriously undermines the credibility of the degrees in which they are not required.
The last thirty years have seen a critical weakening in the structure and rigor of general education requirements in American higher education. In making higher education a product, college administrators have been, in some ways, a catalyst to this process, for in a business model of education, the sheer number of “consumers” is the primary concern. However, education is a more complex process, requiring an understanding of the academy as an educational community. As such, one must consider first how students fit into and contribute to that community, and how the community supports their individual development. At the core of the experience should lie a commitment to mastery of the rudimentary academic skills and knowledge relevant to western society.
In advocating a renewed emphasis on classical literature in Irish education, D. R. Howlett wrote in 1996:
This is not an exercise in quaint antiquarianism. Nor is it a model for an intellectual theme park. It is a plan for recovery of elements of the past that can enrich the present and empower the young to cope with the future. There is little point in teaching information or technology which will be obsolete by the time students leave school. There is much point in teaching children how to learn, to remember, to think, to design, to tell stories, to compose verse and prose and music, to present arguments forcefully and elegantly, by exposing them to durable works of art by their own ancestors which are affective and effective.
While Howlett refers to “ancestors” in the genealogical sense in advocating the study of Latin texts from Celtic sources, we should also consider the wisdom of recognizing the great minds of western civilization as our intellectual ancestors. More importantly, we must embrace the ideal of teaching our students how to learn, how to think, and how to create. Without these fundamental skills, they will be ill prepared to navigate the increasingly complex modern world. Without the broad context established by a rigorous and well ordered general education curriculum, specific information finds no meaningful context, and the fleeting details, memorized merely for an examination, are soon lost. Plato warned against the degeneration of education “from an effort to acquire culture into a heaping up of multifarious information (polypragmosyne).” It is not surprising that in our complex society, “multifarious information” increasingly holds sway in the educational process. However, if we are to truly serve students best, we must first be concerned with the skill of thinking itself. Fortunately, a fundamental understanding of how best to hone this skill has existed for well over two millennia. In light of this, reversing the adverse trends of the last thirty years seems a bit less daunting.
-PMÓS
posted by Patrick O'Shea | 5:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home