Comments on: “Don’t Blame Lu Xun, Blame the Textbooks”

By: Old Tales Retold

Old Tales Retold — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:45:54 +0000

While I am also anxious about the problems highlighted by Chang Ping and by those who have left comments above, one of the nice things about rote memorization and textbook learning—and there aren’t many nice things—is that the material hangs around the back of a student’s head long after the fact. This was pointed out to me by a friend in regards to learning Chinese poetry, but I’d say it’s also relevant to other subjects.

So, a certain Lu Xun essay may be presented as a “classic” with clear points X, Y and Z, but a student who has read it and memorized it and hasn’t had all the life sucked out of it (no guarantee) can go back and refer to the essay mentally later in life. Then, they might just find that “Remembering Liuhe Zhenjun” is a rather subversive piece of writing, after all, scorching authorities who mouth propaganda as they crush youthful activists, etc.

By: piles

piles — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 09:01:08 +0000

Great article, thanks for the translation.
“If we presume that the goal of education is learning and acquiring critical thinking skills…” This is what I would presume too, but while teaching in China I never got any indication from any Chinese teaching colleagues that it was a presumption they shared. What use is teaching critical thinking if it isn’t a skill that is valued by employers and the powers that be?
Incidentally, the UK’s education system seems to be regressing in this respect, with more and more emphasis on regurgitation as opposed to critical thinking, though it’s still less mind-numbing than the gaokao.

By: C. Custer

C. Custer — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 05:56:30 +0000

oh wow, so it does. Guess I missed that, thanks.

By: jdmartinsen

jdmartinsen — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:02:51 +0000

Your link credits Chang Ping (长平) at the end of the text. It also showed up in the Shanghai Morning Post, but I’m not sure if it was written for that paper, or if they republished a Tianya forum post of his.

By: C. Custer

C. Custer — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:04:42 +0000

@ joel: Where was this originally published? I found it on Tianya but there was no author citation anywhere that I saw. I suppose I should have googled or Baidu’ed it to check though…

By: Moules

Moules — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:37:18 +0000

OP’s last para: some of these kids are getting into good schools and are getting good jobs. I would say that that is enough for now – cash is king here after all.

But it would be nice if more of the people around us could think, not just learn. There are lots of academics here, but how many of them are saying original things? Can you build a civil society or develop institutions of fair government without thinkers?

How to reform the education system? If you see the education system as a tool to increase national productivity and competitiveness (as most policy makers here do) then be content that enough scientists and engineers are being produced. The top end will look after itself – the next generations of China’s leaders will all have been educated in the US or the UK.
If you see the education system as a tool to increase social mobility, equity and equality of opportunity (where did this go over the last 3 decades?) then build more schools, train and retain more good teachers and direct funds to ensure that the kids of the poor get the basic education they need.

By: jdmartinsen

jdmartinsen — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:39:14 +0000

Like Chang Ping writes in the first paragraph, this isn’t a new topic, but he’s presenting a perspective that’s not usually part of the conversation, which tends to be a face-off between “students need to read more contemporary, relevant stuff,” and “students need to read important classics like Lu Xun.” But the argument for retaining Lu Xun is generally “so they can learn about XXX” or “so they can understand XXX” – basically using Lu Xun as a way to instruct students in particular ideas or points of view rather than taking his writing as a starting point for literary or historical appreciation. Even the laments over the possible loss of In Memory of Ms. Liu Hezhen from the curriculum were framed in more or less the same terms.