Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality [Paperback]

Charles Murray (Author)

Book Description

Release date: August 25, 2009

"The most talked-about education book this semester." —New York Times

From the author of Coming Apart, and based on a series of controversial Wall Street Journal op-eds, this landmark manifesto gives voice to what everyone knows about talent, ability, and intelligence but no one wants to admit. With four truths as his framework, Charles Murray, the bestselling coauthor of The Bell Curve, sweeps away the hypocrisy, wishful thinking, and upside-down priorities that grip America’s educational establishment.

•Ability varies. Children differ in their ability to learn, but America’s educational system does its best to ignore this.

•Half of the children are below average. Many children cannot learn more than rudimentary reading and math. Yet decades of policies have required schools to divert resources to unattainable goals.

•Too many people are going to college. Only a fraction of students struggling to get a degree can profit from education at the college level.

•America’s future depends on how we educate the academically gifted. It is time to start thinking about the kind of education needed by the young people who will run the country.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, believes our educational system's failures stem from the fundamental lie that every child can be anything he or she wants and that such educational romanticism prevents progress. Four simple truths, he asserts, would prove better: children have different abilities, half of the children are below average, too many children go to college, and America's future depends on the gifted. Murray takes care with his first point, discussing various types of abilities instead of the oft-maligned I.Q. measure; however, he does believe that test scores reflect ability. He argues that there are only a limited number of academically gifted people and these are America's future leaders, that only this elite can enjoy college productively and that the nongifted shouldn't be channeled by their high school counselors into training for that college chimera, which wouldn't make them happy anyway. Further, he argues, if the Educational Testing Service created certification tests covering what employers want applicants to know, these would become the gold standard for applicants, rather than college degrees. This book is likely to stir controversy even if it appears that Murray is dressing up an old elitist argument—test scores reflect ability, so high-scorers should be offered a challenging education, while the below-average should be herded into vocational training. (Aug.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

From School Library Journal

Murray (Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980; coauthor, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life) proposes four "simple truths"—ability varies, half of all children are below average, too many people are going to college, and America's future depends on how we educate the gifted—for parents, educators, and policymakers to confront. The current focus of the educational system, Murray contends, of educating all children to the same level and holding them to the same standards (i.e., No Child Left Behind) ignores these four truths and attempts to prepare most children to earn a B.A., though many of them are not suited for college and would be happier and more productive in different careers. He suggests that bachelor's degrees should be reserved for students with the ability and interest in careers requiring it and instead there should be a series of national certifications to show what a job candidate can actually do. Murray's argument is controversial but well researched. His book is highly recommended for public and academic libraries.—Mark Bay, Cumberland Coll. Lib., Williamsburg, KY
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 224 pages
• Publisher: Three Rivers Press (August 25, 2009)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0307405397
• ISBN-13: 978-0307405395
• Product Dimensions: 5.2 x 0.6 x 8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 7.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (73 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #58,624 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #42 in Books > Education & Reference > Schools & Teaching > Education Theory > History

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

229 of 252 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars "Goodbye to Lake Wobegon" August 21, 2008

By Stanley H. Nemeth

Format:Hardcover

Charles Murray has written a brilliant analysis of the shortcomings of current American education, both K-12 and postsecondary. First among the problems he singles out is the pervasiveness of a mind-set he calls "educational romanticism." Educational romanticism takes as realism the Lake Wobegon fantasy, the notion that all children are above average. Consequently, its advocates tell the young, in smarmy Edgar Guest fashion, that there is nothing beyond their ability if only they try hard enough. Murray subtly points out the unintentional cruelty in this practice of encouraging overparted children to repeatedly set themselves up for failure. As an antidote, he suggests we accept the existential truth that schoolchildren are not equal in talents and abilities, that some are more gifted than others in the most important areas for academic futures, language skills and math ability. Such differences, he readily concedes, do not make one necessarily a better person, but they surely make one a better scholar and thus a more logical candidate for university attendance.

Second, he argues that half of all children are below average. While he concedes each child should have full opportunity to develop his abilities to the utmost, Murray recognizes that no documentation exists which would support the current educational establishment's wishful thinking that it can significantly alter a student's low ability, whether through more money spent, revised pedagogy, or better teacher training. He is similarly dismissive of the government's and politician's hysterical optimism which has produced such absurdities as "No Child Left Behind...."
For the improvement of K-12 education, he favors the junking of current "self-esteem" practices and empty encouragements to "creativity,", replacing them with a rigorous core curriculum such as E. D. Hirsch's which imparts lessons in culture and good citizenship. Murray also favors the return of high school tracking, with a revalorization of vocational studies and a return of respect for those frequently skilled students who choose to go into such rather than prepare for college. He is of the opinion that far too many people are pushed toward college these days, and far too often for highly questionable reasons.

Murray accepts the idea of an unelected elite, one not dependent on birth or wealth, some of whose members invariably wind up running the country. They are the power brokers in the big corporations, the media, the universities. Most of them are drawn from what he designates as the academically gifted, most of whom have had university training. But even here, Murray presents a caveat. This elite may be smart, but these days neither its members, nor its professors, are usually wise. The best that has been thought and said, given the elective system, is all too often missing from such students' university education. "Rigor in forming judgments," "Rigor in thinking about virtue and the Good" have been replaced by professorial canon bashing, contempt for "Dead White Males," and parochial obsession with matters of race, ethnicity, and gender.

Happily, Murray does not follow his lethal analysis with an plea of impotence. He confesses to long-term, if not short-term, hope for improvement. A necessary return to reality he expects will start with parents taking responsibility and increasingly making the right educational choices, choices in the direction of charter schools, home-schooling, CTE schools - whatever may best suit the talents and abilities of their particular children. At the university level, professors will surely tire of post-modern sophistry and realize they can ignore Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Rembrandt, Shakespeare, Homer, et.al. only so long. In Murray's inspiring words, "the greatest work must ultimately come back into scholarly fashion." Read more ›

64 of 71 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Required Reading for Parents, Educators, and Leaders September 7, 2008

By J. Scott Shipman

Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase

Leave it to Mr. Murray to wade into the "special-interest-laden" waters of the educational bureaucracy/establishment and present facts. Mr. Murray has written a book that is maddening on the one hand ("facts are pesky things"), and reassuring on the other. Maddening to the extent of what K-12 education has become,or more correctly, devolved. And Murray takes all comers---including the self-esteem police and the grade-inflating universities. The problems he defines---all created by people with good intentions, no doubt, are fixable but sadly probably not by our current crop of elite educational leaders. Murray concludes on an optimistic note, and not a moment too soon. I have seen anecdotal (my children are through college---those that wanted to go), evidence of Murray's conclusions; many problems are being solved in innovative ways by parents and local communities. His advocacy of expanded vocational HS paths and innovative methods of learning (beyond the campus) are insightful---but so are Murray's admonishment to get back to a "core" curriculum that emphasizes what it means to be human. (By the way, his comparison of Aristotle and Confucius on page 122 is spot-on!).
Murray illuminates the one element that is absent in today's public school setting; the lack of moral instruction. He says, "...the reigning ethical doctrine of contemporary academia: nonjudgmentalism. They have been taught not just that they should be tolerant of different ways of living, but that it is wrong to make judgements about relative merit of different ways of living. It is the inverse of rigor in thinking about virtue and the Good---a task that, above all else, requires the formation of considered judgements...."
Just as his monumental work Losing Ground was used to begin the dismantlement of the welfare state, this book would be a good guide for parents, educators, and leaders to begin asking important questions about how our education dollars are being spent, and what our society gets in return.
A very important book and highly recommended!! Read more ›

34 of 38 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars A Special Educator's Review of a Necessary Book! September 30, 2008

By Kevin Currie-Knight TOP 500 REVIEWERVINE™ VOICE

Format:Kindle Edition|Amazon Verified Purchase

Some books deserve 5 stars not because they are right on every score or because they will convince all readers, but because they explore a hidden other side to a seemingly one sided issue. Charles Murray's "Real Education" is one such book. It will not change everyone's mind. What it will do is make everyone (agreers and disagreers) take a long, hard think.

Murray's main point is a simple one: we need to be real about what we expect from students, especially those in the bottom percentiles. While the present age's mantra is that one size - the "college track" - fits (or SHOULD fit) all, the data has never bourne this out. While very modest gains in ability are possible with much effort, all the attempts to "leave no child behind" do exactly that, often by asking square pegs (underperforming students) to fit into round holes (the college-prep track). Murray shows us the numbers - including those from Head Start and NCLB - to back up the idea that, like it or not, some students are less ACADEMICALLY gifted than others by nature.

One hard truth that Charles Murray focuses on is that while trying to send all kids down the college path sounds good on the surface, it may not be the most reality-based approach. High schools need to recognize that it is alright to steer students towards vocations, two year colleges, and trades. Murray also criticizes colleges for mandating that all students - no matter whether they aspire to be a lawyer or an HR manager - go through four years of liberal arts classes that may be irrelevant to their career-track. (Does the latter really need to take philosophy?)

All of this might seem a bit pessimistic and will surely rub people the wrong way.... As a special educator that deals mostly with the underperformers, I can attest that every teacher I work with knows that, try as we may, some students will never be college material. (As one put it to me, it is not a God-given right to be able to understand algebra.) Murray's point is that the sooner we recognize that one size and ability level does not fit all, the sooner we can figure out how to design an educaiton program that fits everyone's needs, rather than fitting all students to our needs. (Despite our best intentions, half of kids will be below average and 10% will be in the bottom tenth.)

The only real criticisms that I have are that so much of the book focuses on proving that the problem exists that only a small portion - 1 chapter - is focused on soluitons. And, while some of the proposals are sensible, some are chimerical. (Do you really think that there will be a push to replace the BA degree with career-tailored certification programs any time soon?)

Overall, though, there is so much (should be) common sense running through this book that I found myself grinning while reading it. As a teacher, I am always afraid that admitting that variation in scholastic potential exists would consign some of my stduents to failure (and arouse the ire of administrators). Murray's goal is to prove me wrong. He succeeded! Read more ›