# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MAX CHANGMIN 최강창민 'Maniac' Promotion Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Neon Trees - Songs I Can't Listen To (Audio)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The greatest school that ever existed, it has been said, consisted of Socrates standing on a street corner with one or two interlocutors. If this remark strikes the average American as merely a bit of fancy, that is because education here today suffers from an unprecedented amount of aimlessness and confusion. This is not to suggest that education in the United States, as compared with other countries, fails to command attention and support. In our laws we have endorsed it without qualification, and our provision for it, despite some claims to the contrary, has been on a lavish scale. But we behold a situation in which, as the educational plants become larger and more finely appointed, what goes on in them becomes more diluted, less serious, less effective in training mind and character; and correspondingly what comes out of them becomes less equipped for the rigorous tasks of carrying forward an advanced civilization.

Recently I attended a conference addressed by a retired general who had some knowledge of this country's ballistics program. He pointed out that of the twenty-five top men concerned with our progress in this now vital branch of science, not more than two or three were Americans. The others were Europeans, who had received in their European educations the kind of theoretical discipline essential to the work of getting the great missiles aloft. It was a sad commentary on a nation which has prided itself on giving its best to the schools.

It is an educational breakdown which has occurred. Our failure in these matters traces back to a failure to think hard about the real province of education. Most Americans take a certain satisfaction in regarding themselves as tough-minded when it comes to successful ways of doing things and positive achievements. But in deciding what is and is not pertinent to educating the individual, far too many of them have been soft heads.

An alarming percentage of our citizens, it is to be feared, stop with the word "education" itself. It is for them a kind of conjuror's word, which is expected to work miracles by the very utterance. If politics become selfish and shortsighted, the cure that comes to mind is "education." If juvenile delinquency is rampant, "education" is expected to provide the remedy. If the cultural level of popular entertainment declines, "education" is thought of hopefully as the means of arresting the downward trend, People expect to be saved by a word when they cannot even give content to the word.

* * *

Somewhat better off, but far from sufficiently informed and critical, are those who recognize that education must, after all, take some kind of form, that it must be thought of as a process that does something one can recognize. Most of these people, however, see education only as the means by which a person is transported from one economic plane to a higher one, or in some cases from one cultural level to another that is more highly esteemed. They are not wholly wrong in these assumptions, for it is true that persons with a good education do receive, over the period of their lifetime, larger earnings than those without, and it is true that almost any education brings with it a certain amount of cultivation. But again, these people are looking at the outward aspects and are judging education by what it does for one in the general economic and social ordering. In both of these respects education is valued as a means of getting ahead in life, a perfectly proper and legitimate goal, of course, but hardly one which sums up the whole virtue and purpose of an undertaking, which, in a modern society, may require as much as one quarter of the lifespan. Education as a conjuror's word and education viewed as a means of insuring one's progress in relation to his fellows both divert attention from what needs to be done for the individual as a person.

Education is a process by which the individual is developed into something better than he would have been without it. Now when one views this idea from a certain perspective, it appears almost terrifying. How does one go about taking human beings and making them better? The very thought seems in a way the height of presumption. For one thing, it involves the premise that some human beings can be better than others, a supposition that is resisted in some quarters. Yet nothing can be plainer, when we consider it, than this fact that education is discriminative. It takes what is less good physically, mentally, and morally and transforms that by various methods and techniques into something that more nearly approaches our ideal of the good. Every educator who presumes to speak about his profession has in mind some aim, goal, or purpose that he views as beneficial. As various as are the schemes proposed, they all share this generalconcept of betterment. The teacher who did not believe that his efforts contributed to some kind of improvement would certainly have lost the reason for his calling. A surface unanimity about purpose, however, is not enough to prevent confusion and chaos where there is radical disagreement about the nature of the creature who is to be educated.

If man were merely an animal, his "education" would consist only of scientific feeding and proper exercise. If he were merely a tool or an instrument, it would consist of training him in certain response and behavior patterns. If he were a mere pawn of the political state, it would consist of indoctrinating him so completely that he could not see beyond what his masters wanted him to believe. Strange as it may seem, adherents to each of these views can be found in the modern world. But our great tradition of liberal education supported by our intuitive feeling about the nature of man, rejects them all as partial descriptions.

* * *

The vast majority of people conscious of this tradition agree that the purpose of education is to make the human being more human. Every generation is born ignorant and unformed; it is the task of those whom society employs as educators to bring the new arrivals up to a certain level of humanity. But even with this simple statement, we find trickiness in the terms. The word "human" is one of varying implications. In estimating what constitutes a complete human being some persons today are willing to settle for a pretty low figure. To some of them, as previously noted, he is nothing more than an animal in an advanced state of evolution. His brain is only a highly developed muscle, useful to him in the same way that the prehensile tail is to the monkey; his needs are a set of skills which will enable him to get his sustenance from nature, and his purpose is to enjoy himself with the minimum amount of anxiety and the maximum amount of physical satisfaction. Others go somewhat beyond this and insist that in addition to his requirements as an animal, roan has certain needs which can be described as social, intellectual and aesthetic, and that these in turn require a kind of education which is not limited to practical self-survival. Others go beyond this and say that roan is an incurably spiritual being-that he is this even when he says he is not-and that he cannot live a satisfying sort of life until certain ends which might be called psychic are met. Man has an irresistible desire to relate himself somehow to the totality, to ask what is the meaning of his presence here amid the great empirical fact of the universe. Many feel that until this question receives some sort of answer, none of the facts of life can be put in any kind of perspective.

We will not pause to weigh the opinion of those who consider man merely an animal. This view has always been both incredible and repugnant to the majority of mankind, and is accepted only by the few who have bound themselves to a theoretical materialism.

All others agree that the human being has a distinguishing attribute in mind. Now mind is something more than brain. Many anatomists and surgeons have seen a brain, but nobody has ever seen a mind. This is because we believe that the mind is not merely a central exchange of the body's system, where nerve impulses are brought together and relayed; it is a still mysterious entity in which man associates together the various cognitive, aesthetic, moral, and spiritual impulses which come to him from the outer and inner worlds. It is the seat of his rational faculty, but it is also the place where his inclinations are reduced to order and are directed. Most importantly for the concerns of education, mind is the place where symbols are understood and are acted upon.

* * *

Man has, in fact, been defined as the symbol-using animal. This definition makes symbol-using the distinguishing characteristic which separates him from all the other creatures with which he shares animal attributes. Even though the definition may be a partial one, it points to the faculty which has enabled man to create cultures and civilizations. The significance of the symbol is that it enables us to express knowledge and to communicate in an intellectual and not in a sensate way. Even in the matter of economy, this gain is an enormous one. If a man wishes to indicate six, he uses the symbol "6"; he does not have to lay out six pieces of wood or other objects to make his meaning clear to another. If he wishes to indicate water, he does not have to go through the motions of drinking or some other pantomime. If he wishes to express his insight into a wide complex of physical phenomena, he can do this by means of a mathematical formula, like the now famous E=mc ². This is a highly symbolic form of expression, in the absence of which, it is hardly needful to point out, man's power to deal with nature would be very much smaller than it is at present. But symbolism is not used only to convey information about the physical world. Through the use of symbols man expresses those feelings and states of being which are none the less real for being subjective. His feelings of love, of delight, of aversion have been put in forms transmissible from generation to generation through the use of symbols-letters in literature, notation in music, symbolic articles in dress and in ceremonials, and so on. It is impossible to realize how poor our lives would be without the intellectual and emotional creations which depend upon this symbolic activity.

It might seem that all of this is too obvious to need a case made for it. But there exists a crisis in education today which forces all who believe in the higher nature of man to come to the defense of those subjects which discipline the mind through the language of sign and symbol.

* * *

For some while now there has been a movement among certain people styling themselves educators to disparage and even do away with the very things that were once considered the reason for and the purpose of all education. There has been a bold and open attempt to deny that man has a nature which is fulfilled only when these higher faculties are brought into play, educated, and used to make life more human in the distinctive sense. Oddly enough, the movement has arrogated to itself the name "progressive." That seems a curious term to apply to something that is retrogressive in effect, since it would drag men back toward the pre-symbolic era. In preempting the adjective "progressive' for their brand of education, these innovators were trying a rhetorical maneuver. They were trying to give the impression that their theory of education is the only forward-looking one, and that the traditional ones were inherited from times and places that sat in darkness. Now it is quite true that "progressive" education represents a departure from an ideal that has prevailed ever since the ancient Hebrews, the people of the Bible, thought about religion, and the Greeks envisioned the life of reason. This new education is not designed for man as an immortal soul, nor is it designed to help him measure up to any ideal standard. The only goal which it professes to have in view is "adjustment to life." If we examine this phrase carefully, we will see that it, like a number of others that these educational imposters have been wont to use, is rather cleverly contrived to win a rhetorical advantage. "Adjustment" has an immediate kind of appeal, because no one likes to think of himself as being "maladjusted"; that suggests failure, discomfort, and other unpleasant experiences. And furthermore, "adjustment to life" may be taken by the unwary as suggesting a kind of victory over life-success and pleasure and all that sort of thing. But as soon as we begin to examine the phrase both carefully and critically, we find that it contains booby traps. It is far from likely that the greatest men of the past, including not only famous ones but also great benefactors of humanity, have been "adjusted" in this sense. When we begin to study their actual lives, we find that these were filled with toil, strenuousness, anxiety, self-sacrifice, and sometimes a good bit of friction with their environment. In fact, it would be much nearer the truth to say that the great creative spirits of the past has been maladjusted to life in one or more important ways. Some kind of productive tension between them and their worlds was essential to their creative accomplishment. This indeed seems to be a necessity for all evolutionary progress, not merely on the organic level but on the cultural level as well. This must not be taken to mean that such persons never achieve happiness. "Happiness" as employed by today's journalism is a pretty flabby and misleading word. Certain distinctions must be made before it can be safely used. The moments of happiness of creative people, though perhaps comparatively rare, are very elevated and very intense. This is characteristic of the life of genius. And when a culture ceases to produce vital creative spirits, it must cease to endure, for these are necessary even to sustain it.

Now let us look carefully at the second term of this formula. The prophets of the new education say that they are going to teach the young to adjust to life. But when we begin to elicit what they have in mind, we begin to wonder what kind of thing they imagine life to be. They seem to have in mind some simulacrum of life, or some travesty, or some abstracted part. They do not contemplate adjusting students to life in its fullness and mystery, but to life lived in some kind of projected socialist commonwealth, where everybody has so conformed to a political pattern that there really are no problems anymore. Adjustment to real life must take into account pain, evil, passion, tragedy, the limits of human power, heroism, the attraction of ideals, arid so on. The education of the "progressives" does not do this. It educates for a world conceived as without serious conflicts. And this is the propaganda of ignorance.

Furthermore, nearly all of the great uses have involved sonic form of sacrifice for an ideal; nearly all great individuals have felt the call for that kind of sacrifice, But sacrifice does not exist in the vocabulary of "progressive" education, since for them everything must take the form of "adjustment" or self-realization. Were Buddha, Socrates, and Jesus "adjusted to life"? The way in which one answers that question will reveal whether he stands with those who believe that man has a higher self and a higher destiny or whether he is willing to stop with an essentially barbaric ideal of happiness. The adjustment which the progressive educators prate of is, just because of its lack of any spiritual ideal, nothing more than the adjustment of a worm to the surface it is crawling on.

* * *

When we turn to the practical influence of their theorizing, we find that it has worked to undermine the discipline which has been used through the centuries to make the human being a more aware, resourceful, and responsible person. As would be expected, the brunt of their attack has been against those studies which, because they make the greatest use of symbols are the most intellectual-against mathematics and language study, with history and philosophy catching a large share also of their disapproval. (There are excellent reasons for terming certain subjects "disciplines" and for insisting that the term be preserved. For "discipline" denotes something that has the power to shape and to control in accordance with objective standards. It connotes the power to repress and discourage those impulses which interfere with the proper development of the person. A disciplined body is one that is developed and trained to do what its owner needs it to do; a disciplined mind is one that is developed and trained to think in accordance with the necessary laws of thought, and which therefore can provide its owner with true casual reasoning about the world. A person with a disciplined will is trained to want the right thing and to reject the bad out of his own free volition. Discipline involves the idea of the negative, and this is another proof that man does not unfold merely naturally, like a flower. He unfolds when be is being developed by a sound educational philosophy according to known lines of truth and error, of right and wrong.)

Mathematics lies at the basis of our thinking about number, magnitude, and position. Number is the very language of science. So pervasive is it in the work of the intellect that Plato would have allowed no one to study philosophy who had not studied mathematics. But these are the very reasons that mathematics is calculated to arouse the suspicion of the "progressives"; it works entirely through symbols and it makes real demands upon the intellect.

Language has been called "the supreme organon of the mind's self-ordering growth." It is the means by which we not only communicate our thoughts to others but interpret our thoughts to ourselves. The very fact that language has the public aspect of intelligibility imposes a discipline upon the mind; it forces us to be critical of our own thoughts so that they will be comprehensible to others. But at the same time it affords us practically infinite possibilities of expressing our particular inclinations through its variety of combinations and its nuances. Most authorities agree that we even think in language, that without language thought would actually be impossible. Those who attack the study of language (whether in the form of grammar, logic, and rhetoric or in the form of a foreign language) because it is "aristocratic" are attacking the basic instrumentality of the mind.

* * *

History has always been a sobering discipline because it presents the story not only of man's achievements but also of his failures. History contains many vivid lessons of what can happen to man if he lets go his grip upon reality and becomes self-indulgent; it is the record of the race, which can be laid alongside the dreams of visionaries, with many profitable lessons. Yet the modern tendency is to drop the old-fashioned history course and to substitute something called "social science" or "social studies," which one student has aptly dubbed "social stew." What this often turns out to be is a large amount of speculation based on a small amount of history, and the speculation is more or less subtly slanted to show that we should move in the direction of socialism or some other collectivism. Often this kind of study is simply frivolous; the student is invited to give his thought to the "dating patterns" of teenagers instead of to those facts which explain the rise and fall of nations. There is more to be learned about the nature of man as an individual and as a member of society from a firm grounding in ancient and modern history than from all the "social studies" ever put together by dreamy "progressive" educators.

Philosophy too is an essential part of liberal education because it alone can provide a structure for organizing our experience and a ground for the hierarchical ordering of our values. But under "progressive" education there is but one kind of philosophy, that of experimental inquiry in adapting to an environment. This has no power to yield insight and no means of indicating whether one kind of life is higher than another if both show an adjustment to the externals around them.

Thus with amazing audacity the "progressive" educators have turned their backs upon those subjects which throughout civilized history have provided the foundations of culture and of intellectual distinction.

If this has been stressed at some length, it is in order to deny the claim that "progressive" education fosters individualism. It may have the specious look of doing so because it advocates personal experience as a teacher and the release of the natural tendencies of the person. Yet it does this on a level which does not make for true individualism. Individualism in the true sense is a matter of the mind and the spirit; it means the development of the person, not the well-adjusted automaton. What the progressivists really desire to produce is the "smooth" individual adapted to some favorite scheme of collectivized living, not the person of strong convictions, of refined sensibility, and of deep personal feeling of direction in life. Any doubt of this may be removed by noting how many "progressive" educators are in favor of more state activity in education. Under the cloak of devotion to the public schools, they urge an ever greater state control, the final form of which would be, in our country, a Federal educational system directed out of Washington and used to instill the collectivist political notions which are the primary motives of this group.

* * *

No true believer in freedom can contemplate this prospect with anything but aversion. If there is one single condition necessary to the survival of truth and of values in our civilization, it is that the educational system be left independent enough to espouse these truths and values regardless of the political winds of doctrine of the moment. The fairest promises of a hands-off policy on the part of Federal educational authorities would come to nothing once they were assured of their power and control. If education were allowed to become completely statist affair, there is no assurance that the content of even science courses would be kept free from the injection of political ideas. The latter might seem a fantastic impossibility, yet it has actually occurred in the Soviet Union. This is a case well worth relating as a warning to all who would put faith in centralized education under a paternalistic state.

Some years ago the leading Soviet geneticist was one T. D. Lysenko, who occupied the post of President of the All-Union Lenin Academy of Agricultural Science. Lysenko claimed that he had disposed of the genetic theories of Mendel and Morgan, his motive being that these were "reactionary" and Counter to the theories of socialism. Western scientists exposed the fallacies in his work and denounced him as an ignorant quack. But Lysenko, working through a stooge named Michurin, established what he called "Michurin science" in genetics, to which Soviet geneticists still have to bow because it is in accord with the Marxist political line. How far the Communists are willing to go in perverting science to the uses of politics may be seen in the following excerpts from an article in the USSR Information Bulletin written by Lysenko himself.

It was the great Lenin who discovered Michurin arid the great Stalin who launched Michurin's materialistic biological theories on the highroad of creative work.
Not only has the great Stalin rescued the Michurin teaching from the attempts of reactionaries in science to destroy it; he has also helped to rear large forces of Michurinist scientists and practical workers, His guiding ideas have played and are playing a decisive role in the triumph of the materialistic Michurin teaching over the reactionary, idealistic Weissmannism-Morganism in the Soviet land.
The works of Joseph Stalin are an invaluable and inexhaustible fount for the development of theoretical Michurinist biology. His classic work, Dialectic and Historical Materialism, is an indispensable general theoretical aid to all agrobiologists, which helps them to gain a correct understanding of biological facts. Only when examined in the light of dialectical and historical materialism, the principles of which have been further developed by Stalin, does the Michurinist biological teaching gradually reveal its full depth and truth to us.

Where education is under the control of collectivist fanatics, not only is the individual's loyalty to truth despised, but the objective findings of science may be thus perverted to serve the ends of a political ideology.

Even though this may be regarded as an extreme case, we are living in a world where extreme aberrations occur suddenly, so that "It can't happen here" may be followed rather abruptly by "Now it has happened here." Dangers are always best met at the frontier, and the frontier in this instance is just where the state proposes to move in on education. Education's first loyalty is to the truth, and the educator must be left free to assert, as sometimes he needs to do, unpopular or unappreciated points of view.

* * *

Education thus has a major responsibility to what we think of as objectively true. But it also has a major responsibility to the person. We may press this even further and say that education must regard two things as sacred: the truth, and the personality that is to be brought into contact with it. No education can be civilizing and humane unless it is a respecter of persons. It may be that up to a certain utilitarian point, everyone's training can be more or less alike. But in a most important area, no educational institution is doing its duty if it treats the individual "just like everybody else." Education has to take into account the differing aptitudes produced by nature and individual character, and these differing aptitudes are extremely various. Physiologists are just beginning to understand how widely men differ in their capacities to see, to taste, to bear pain, to assimilate food, to tolerate toxic substances, and in many other physical respects. On top of this are the multifarious ways in which individuals differ psychologically through their nervous systems, reflexes, habits, and patterns of coordination. And above this are the various ways in which individuals differ physically in their ways of intuiting reality, their awareness of ideals, their desires for this or that supersensible satisfaction, and so on. When all of these factors are brought into view, it is seen that every individual is a unique creation, something "fearfully and wonderfully made," and that the educator who does not allow for special development within the discipline which he imposes is a repressor and a violator.

* * *

Now the educator who is aware of all the facts and values involved in his difficult calling will recognize in the individual a certain realm of privacy. Much of present-day education and many of the pressures of modern life treat the person as if he were a one-, or at best two-dimensional being. They tend to simplify and indeed even to brutalize their treatment of the person by insisting that certain ways are "good for everybody. Yet it is a truth of the greatest importance that our original ideas and our intuitions of value form in certain recesses of the being which must be preserved if these processes are to take place. The kind of self-mastery which is the most valuable of all possessions is not something imposed from without; it is a gestation within us, a growth in several dimensions, an integration which brings into a whole one's private thoughts and feelings and one's private acts and utterances. A private world alone is indeed dangerous, but a personality whose orientation is entirely public is apt to be flat, uncreative, and uninteresting. The individual who does not develop within himself certain psychic depths cannot, when the crises of life have to be faced meet them with any real staying power. His fate is to be moved along by circumstances, which in themselves cannot bring one to an intelligent solution.

Most people have marvelled how Abraham Lincoln was able to develop such a mastery of logic and such a sense of the meaning of words while growing up in a society which set little store by these accomplishments. Yet the answer seems easy enough; Lincoln had a very real private life, in which he reflected deeply upon these matters until he made them a kind of personal possession. He was an individual-keeping up a train of personal reflection, even while mingling in friendly and humorous way with the people of his frontier community. Lincoln paid a price for this achievement, of course, the rule of this world being "nothing for nothing." But no one who believes in greatness will say that the price was out of proportion to what was gained. If it is true that Lincoln "belongs to the ages," it is so because he learned to think about things in a way that enabled him to transcend time and place. This is what is meant by developing a personality.

* * *

How far modern theorists have drifted from these truths may be seen in the strange remarks of the "progressive" educator John Dewey.

the idea of perfecting an 'inner' personality is a sure sign of social divisions, What is called inner is simply that which does not connect with others-which is not capable of full and free communication. What is termed spiritual culture has usually been futile, with something rotten about it, just because it has been conceived as a thing which a man might have internally-and therefore exclusively.

For Dewey an inner consciousness is exclusive, aristocratic, separative. What Dewey denies, what his spurious system forces him to deny, is that by achieving a depth of personality, one does develop a power and a means of influencing the community in the best sense of the term "influence." To speak personally is to speak universally. Humanity is not a community in the sense of a number of atoms or monads, knocking together; it is a spiritual community, in which to feel deeply is to feel widely, or to make oneself accessible to most of one's fellow members. In consequence, it cannot be too forcefully argued that the education which regards only development with reference to externals is not education for a higher plane of living, for the individual and for the society of which he is a part, but for a lower-for an artificially depressed level of living which, were it to be realized, would put an end to human development.

Although it may at first seem paradoxical to insist both upon discipline and the development of private and inner resources, the cooperative working of the two is a proved fact of education. Nothing today more needs recovering than the truth that interest develops under pressure.Man is not spontaneously interested in anything with an interest that lasts or that carried him beyond attention to superficial aspects. Natural interest which is left to itself nearly always proves impermanent, disconnected, and frivolous. It is only when we are made to take an interest in something that we become exposed to its real possibility of interesting us. It is only then that we see far enough into its complications and potentialities to say to ourselves, here is a real problem, or a real opportunity. We need not suppose that institutions are the only source of this kind of pressure. The situation a person finds himself in when he must earn a living or achieve some coveted goal may exert the necessary compulsion. But here we are talking about what formal education can do for the individual, and one of the invaluable things it can do is face him with the necessity of mastering something, so that he can find the real richness that lies beyond his threshold indifference to it. An interest in mathematics, in music, in poetry has often resulted from an individual's being confronted with one of these as a "discipline"; that is, as something he had to become acquainted with on pain of penalties. The subject there by its own powers begins to evoke him, and before long he is wondering how he could ever have been oblivious to such a fascinating world of knowledge and experience. From this point on his appreciation of it becomes individual, personal, and creative.

As individuality begins to assert itself in the man or woman, we realize that its movement is toward a final ethical tie-up of the personality. Individuality should not be equated with a mere set of idiosyncrasies. Idiosyncrasy is casual, fortuitous, essentially meaningless. No enlightened believer in individualism rests his case on anything as peripheral as this. To be an individual does not mean to be "peculiar" or somehow curious in one's outlook. It does, however, mean to be distinctive.

Individuality as a goal must be explained by men's inclinations toward the good. All of us aspire toward something higher, even though there are varying ways in which that something higher can be visualized or represented. Whether one is prone to accept an ethical humanism, a tradition of religious principles, or a creed having its authority in revelation, the truth cannot be ignored that man is looking for something better both in himself and in others. But because different persons have, through their inheritance, nurture, and education different faculties, they have different insights into the good. One man is deeply and constantly aware of certain appearances of it; another of others; and sometimes these differences are so great that they lead to actual misunderstanding. Nevertheless, the wisest have realized that such differences express finally different orientations toward values, and that the proper aim of society is not to iron them out but to provide opportunity for their expression. Variations appearing in these forms do not mean simply that one man is right and another wrong; they mean that the persons in question are responding according to their different powers to apprehend an order of reality. In this kind of perception, some persons are fast movers; others are slow but deep; some have to see things concretely; others are more successful in working out ideas and principles; some people are profoundly sensitive to place; others would do about the same kind of thinking anywhere; some do their best work while feeling a sense of security; others require the excitement and stimulus of uncertainty to draw forth their best efforts. Such a list of differences could be extended almost endlessly. But what it comes down to is this: the reason for not only permitting but encouraging individualism is that each person is individually related toward the source of ethical impulse and should be allowed to express his special capacity for that relation. This is at the same time the real validation of democracy. Democracy cannot rest upon a belief in the magic of numbers. It rests upon a belief that every individual has some special angle of vision, some particular insight into a situation which ought to be taken into account before a policy is decided on. Voting is perhaps only a rough way of effecting this, but the essential theory is clear: every person is deemed to have something worthy to contribute to decision-making, and the very diversity and variety of these responses are what makes democracy not indeed a more efficient, but a fairer form of government than those in which one, or a few men at the top assume that their particular angle upon matters contains all the perception of the good that is needed.

Yet there is a very true sense in which one does not become such an individual until he becomes aware of his possession of freedom. One cannot act as a being until one is a being; one can not be a being unless he feels within himself the grounds of his action. The people in this world who impress us as nonentities are, in the true analysis, people whose speech and actions are only reflections of what they see and hear about them, who have no means of evaluating themselves except through what other people think of them. These are the "other directed men," the hollow men, the men who have to be filled with stuffing from the outside, of which our civilization is increasingly productive. The real person is, in contrast, the individual who senses in himself an internal principle of control, to which his thoughts and actions are related. Ever aware of this, he makes his choices, and this choosing is the most real thing he ever does because it asserts his character in the midst of circumstances. Then the feeling of freedom comes with a great upsurging sense of triumph: to be free is to be victorious; it is to count, whereas the nonentity by his very nature does not count.

* * *

A liberal education specifically prepares for the achievement of freedom. Of this there is interesting corroboration in the word itself. "Liberal" comes from a Latin term signifying "free," and historically speaking, liberal education has been designed for the freemen of a state. Its content and method have been designed to develop the mind and the character in making choices between truth and error, between right and wrong. For liberal education introduces one to the principles of things, and it is only with reference to the principles of things, that such judgments are at all possible. The mere facts about a subject, which may come marching in monotonous array, do not speak for themselves. They speak only through an interpreter, as it were, and the interpreter has to be those general ideas derived from an understanding of the nature of language, of logic, and of mathematics, and of ethics and politics. The individual who is trained in these basic disciplines is able to confront any fact with the reality of his freedom to choose. This is the way in which liberal education liberates.

Finally, therefore, we are brought to see that education for individualism is education for goodness. How could it be otherwise? The liberally educated individual is the man who is at home in the world of ideas. And because he has achieved a true selfhood by realizing that he is a creature of free choice, he can select among ideas in the light of the relations he has found to obtain among them. Just as he is not the slave of another man, with his freedom of choice of work taken from him, so he is not the slave of .a political state, shielded by his "superiors" from contact with error and evil. The idea of virtue is assimilated and grows into character through exercise, which means freedom of action in a world in which not all things are good. This truth has never been put more eloquently than by the poet Milton.

I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the rare, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat. Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world; we bring impurity much rather; that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary.

Freedom and goodness finally merge in this conception; the unfreeman cannot be good because virtue is a state of character concerned with choice, and if this latter is taken away, there is simply no way for goodness to assert itself. The moment we judge the smallest action in terms of right and wrong, we are stepping up to a plane where the good is felt as an imperative, even though it can be disobeyed. When education is seen as culminating in this, we can cease troubling about its failure to accomplish this or that incidental objective. An awareness of the order of the goods will take care of many things which are now felt as unresolvable difficulties, and we will have advanced once more as far as Socrates when he made the young Athenians aware that the unexamined life is not worth living.

Richard M. Weaver (1910-1963) was one of the leading thinkers of the post-World War II conservative intellectual movement. Best known for his landmark book Ideas Have Consequences, Weaver was a scholar and rhetorician who taught English at the University of Chicago for almost thirty years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Education and the Individual - Intercollegiate Studies Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The greatest school that ever existed, it has been said, consisted of Socrates standing on a street corner with one or two interlocutors. If this remark strikes the aver­age American as merely a bit of fancy, that is because education here today suffers from an unprecedented amount of aimlessness and confusion.

# data[].attributes.body
(I had to include at least one song from the OST to match the theme)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
배철수의 음악캠프 선곡표

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UoPeople Data - University of the People

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore University of the People's data-driven results, including student demographics, graduation and retention rates, satisfaction, and impressive alumni outcomes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
M. Giovanna Merli | Sanford School of Public Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
My research straddles three disciplinary realms: demography, contemporary Chinese society and global health. I focus on a range of population and health issues in develop

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Academic Team - University of the People

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The academic team at "University of the People" is committed to helping students succeed. We are here to help you with your studies, and we want you to feel comfortable asking us for assistance. Go to our website today!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Director, Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences
Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Medicine (Primary Care and Population Health)
Associate Professor (by courtesy) of Sociology
School of Medicine

Latha Palaniappan, MD, MS
Associate Faculty Director, Education
Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences
Professor of Medicine (Primary Care and Population Health)
Professor (by courtesy) of Medicine (Health Research and Policy)
School of Medicine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Director, Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Medicine (Primary Care and Population Health) Associate Professor (by courtesy) of Sociology School of Medicine Latha Palaniappan, MD, MS Associate Faculty Director, Education Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences Professor of Medicine (Primary Care and Population Health) Professor (by courtesy) of Medicine (Health Research and Policy) School of Medicine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We ask all applicants for a one-time, non-refundable application fee of $60 for all programs except English as a Second Language. The English as a Second Language program asks for a one-time, non-refundable application fee of $100.
Course Assessment Fees:
For each certificate course, there is an assessment fee of $200, to be paid at the end of each course.

For each level/course, there is an assessment fee of $120, to be paid at the end of each level/course.

For each undergraduate course, there is an assessment fee of $120, to be paid by the end of each course.

For each graduate course, there is an assessment fee of $300 for MBA/M.Ed/MSIT, to be paid by the end of each course.
Total Costs
The total approximate costs to earn a degree at UoPeople are the following:
Transfer Credit
It costs only $17 for each accepted course. To learn more about the transfer credit process, visit our transfer credit page.
Grants & Scholarships
UoPeople collaborates with top corporations and organizations to provide grants and scholarships to students who need financial support to pay our fees. It is UoPeople's aim that financial barriers will not restrict students from studying. To learn more, visit our scholarships page .

Because we do not charge tuition, UoPeople does not receive Title IV funds and does not participate in federal or state financial aid programs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We ask all applicants for a one-time, non-refundable application fee of $60 for all programs except English as a Second Language. The English as a Second Language program asks for a one-time, non-refundable application fee of $100. Course Assessment Fees: For each certificate course, there is an assessment fee of $200, to be paid at the end of each course.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs contains information reported to the U.S. Department of Education directly by recognized accrediting agencies and state approval agencies. The database reflects additional information as it is received from recognized a…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Accredited online colleges are as legitimate as their brick-and-mortar counterparts. Here's why accreditation is important and what you need to know.

Accreditation is an evaluative process to ensure colleges meet high educational standards.

Accreditation can affect financial aid eligibility, transfer credits, and job prospects.

The ED and CHEA oversee the accreditation system and host lists of recognized accreditors.

The top online accredited schools prepare students both academically and professionally.

While the U.S. hosts more than 4,000 colleges and universities across its 50 states, not all schools are created equal.

Accreditation functions as an evaluative process and an institutional designation, ensuring that schools meet certain educational standards agreed upon by federal, state, and/or non-governmental agencies.

BestColleges.com is an advertising-supported site. Featured or trusted partner programs and all school search, finder, or match results are for schools that compensate us. This compensation does not influence our school rankings, resource guides, or other editorially-independent information published on this site.

Ready to Start Your Journey?

Schools that lack proper accreditation offer no guarantee of adequate academic or professional preparation, and their credits may not transfer to accredited institutions.

This page offers a general overview of college accreditation, including major accrediting agencies, types of accreditation, the importance of attending a properly accredited school, and strategies for spotting fraudulently accredited institutions.

The Importance of Online College Accreditation

Proper accreditation is particularly important for online programs. While distance education offers convenience and flexibility for online learners, it can also help fraudulent or unreputable institutions appear more legitimate through their online appearance.

Additionally, proper accreditation can affect your educational outlook in several ways, including financial aid eligibility, credit transferability, and employment prospects.

Education Quality

The academic and professional standards enforced by accrediting agencies provide a reasonable guarantee of receiving a quality education with adequate institutional support services.

A school that lacks proper accreditation may not prepare graduates to succeed in the workforce or for further academic study.

Employer Perception

Accreditation ensures a school provides a high-quality education. Without accreditation, employers may have trouble determining whether a candidate received an adequate education. Consequently, many employers only recognize degrees from accredited institutions.

Financial Aid

Financial aid is a common concern for most college students, and accreditation can directly affect your eligibility to receive federal aid.

Only students enrolled at schools that hold accreditation from an organization recognized by the Department of Education (ED) or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) are eligible to receive federal aid.

Credit Transferability

Credit transferability is another distinguishing factor between accredited and non-accredited colleges. Accreditation standards ensure that most credits transfer easily between accredited institutions across the country.

Non-accredited colleges offer no guarantee of credit transferability. This can affect your ability to transfer to another college or enroll in a graduate program.

Types of Accreditation: Institutional vs. Programmatic

Accreditation breaks down into two major categories: institutional and programmatic. Institutional accreditation assesses a college's overall ability to establish and meet academic standards. An institutional accreditation agency typically evaluates several aspects of a college, including its academics, finances, governance and administration, overall mission, and available resources.

Programmatic accreditation generally focuses on individual programs, departments, or academic schools that function as part of a larger institution. Given their specialized nature, programmatic accreditation agencies usually focus on one academic discipline, such as nursing or counseling. However, not all academic fields or specialties boast a relevant specialized accreditation organization.

What Is the Best Accreditation for Online Colleges?

In the past, many public and private four-year institutions received accreditation from regional accrediting bodies. Regional accreditation was considered the gold standard, and these organizations worked to ensure high-quality education in specific geographical areas.

There were also national accrediting bodies, reserved primarily for trade schools, Bible colleges, and for-profit colleges. In many circles, this type of recognition was considered substandard to regional accreditation. However, in 2019, the ED began permitting accrediting bodies to compete in each other's historical regions, essentially removing the distinction between national and regional accreditors.

As the popularity of online programs has increased, so too has the number of fake accrediting agencies. Fortunately, the ED and CHEA provide databases of legitimate accreditation organizations. When searching either of these databases, look for institutional and programmatic accreditation - these are the two main types of recognized accrediting bodies.

How to Tell If a School or Online Program is Accredited

Online programs generally receive accreditation from the same agencies that evaluate on-campus programs, including institutional and programmatic agencies. While programmatic accreditation can vary widely, institutional accreditation remains one of the most consistent markers of a college's reputability.

A quick search on the U.S Department of Education's accreditation database can help students determine a school's accreditation status. To ensure that you attend a top school, look for approval from one of the following agencies:

How to Check Accreditation

Fake accreditation agencies attempt to appear legitimate, often using names similar to real agencies and including reputable schools on their list of members. However, a bit of research can usually help you identify a fraudulent agency.

Both the ED and the CHEA maintain searchable databases of recognized accreditation agencies. If a college's listed accreditation agency doesn't appear in either of these databases, you should be wary of trusting the school or accreditation agency.

What Are the Top Accredited Online Colleges?

The country's top accredited online schools offer a comprehensive education, preparing graduates to succeed professionally.

Check out our ranking of the best accredited online colleges to find schools that combine strong academic programs, extensive support services, and valuable career resources for students and alumni.

Frequently Asked Questions About Online College Accreditation

Until recently, schools could earn regional or national accreditation at the institutional level. However, in 2019, the ED altered its accreditation rules, permitting accrediting bodies to compete in each other's regions.

This change effectively ended the distinction between national and regional accreditation. However, while conducting your college search, you may still run across these terms.

Historically, national accreditation was typically reserved for technical colleges, trade schools, and some religious colleges. Regional accreditation assessed most other degree-granting higher education institutions, including four-year colleges and universities.

Institutional accreditation helps ensure a college's reputability. Online programs typically gain institutional accreditation from the same agencies that evaluate on-campus programs.

Accreditation organizations establish standards related to curriculum, student support services, and student and faculty expectations. Both the ED and CHEA maintain searchable databases of recognized accreditation organizations.

If a college's accrediting body doesn't appear in one of these databases, the accreditation is likely bogus. Additionally, programmatic accreditation is essential for many individual programs, such as nursing, dentistry, law, and education. However, not all fields feature a relevant programmatic accreditation agency.

An accreditation mill awards educational accreditation to higher education institutions and programs without having government authority or recognition. These phony organizations offer accreditation for a fee -- typically without reviewing an institution or program.

An accreditation mill is similar to a diploma mill. They are set up to attract students but have no legal or academic value. Students who attend a school that's not recognized by a reputable accreditation agency have no assurance they'll receive a quality education.

Furthermore, accreditation mills often adopt names similar to well-known accrediting agencies. However, an accreditation mill won't be listed in the directory of recognized accrediting agencies on the ED's or CHEA's websites.

Feature Image: Gabriel Visintin / EyeEm / Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Does Online College Accreditation Work? | BestColleges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Accredited online colleges are as legitimate as their brick-and-mortar counterparts. Here's why accreditation is important and what you need to know. Accreditation is an evaluative process to ensure colleges meet high educational standards. Accreditation can affect financial aid eligibility, transfer credits, and job prospects.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Home > Average College Tuition

Report Highlights

The highest cost schools tend to be in the Northeast.

The lowest-cost schools are mostly located in the Plains and the South.

The overall average cost of tuition and required fees in the 2019-2020 school year was $21,035 per year for a public 4-year college, for an in-state student.

For the 2019-2020 school year, the nationwide average for a year of tuition and required fees at a private 4-year college was $32,769.

In the 2020-2021 school year, the average tuition and required fees for a year at a public college for an in-state student was $10,388 and $22,698 for an out-of-state-student.

The average cost of a year at a private college for the 2020-2021 school year was $38,185.

More statistics: Average Private School Tuition – Number of Schools in the US.

The average (nationwide) private 4-year college tuition, including required fees, in the 2019-2020 school year was $32,769.

This was $886 more than the average private 4-year college tuition and required fees from the 2018-2019 school year, which was $31,883.

Adding in room ($7,401 on average) and board ($5,761 on average) for the 2019-2020 school year, the total cost per year for private 4-year college was $45,932 per year.

This was an increase of $1,261 over the total tuition, required fees, plus room and board for private 4-year colleges for the 2018-2019 school year.

Average Public College Tuition

Nationwide, on average, public school tuition and required fees for a 4-year college in 2019-2020 was $9,349, for an in-state student.

In the same year, the average out-of-state student would pay $17,674 more, for a total of $27,023.

If the in-state student also needed to pay room ($6,655 on average) and board ($5,031 on average), then their total for the 2019-2020 school year would have been $21,035.

The tuition and required fees for an in-state student at a public 4-year college were only $138 more in 2019-2020 than in 2018-2019, when they totaled $9,212.

Adding in room and board brings the increase to $438, from the in-state 4-year college 2018-2019 total of $20,597.

Public 2-year colleges including required fees were much less expensive per year, with 2019-2020 averaging only $3,377 per year.

This was a very modest increase of only $65 over the 2018-2019 cost of $3,312 per year.

The average out-of-state student, however, would pay $8,126 per year in 2019-2020 for a public 2-year college education, including required fees.

Average College Tuition In-State Versus Out-of-State

In 2019-2020, the average cost of a year of out-of-state student tuition and required fees at a 4-year public school was $27,023 versus $9,349 that an in-state student would pay.

That was a difference of $17,674 more that an out-of-state student would pay compared to an in-state student, on average, for a year of public college education at a 4-year college.

In 2019-2020, out-of-state tuition and required fees for a year at a public 2-year college, on average, nationwide, was $8,126 versus only $3,377 for an in-state student.

The difference between the nationwide average for in-state and out-of-state tuition at a public 2-year college for the 2019-2020 school year was $4,749.

There was no noted difference between the average in-state versus out-of-state cost for private 4-year colleges.

Average College Tuition by State

The following statistics take into account information for full-time and full-time-equivalent students for the entire academic year. The data was compiled from the 2019-2020 school year before the COVID-19 pandemic and so does not include any changes that may have been made as a result of any refunds or other adjustments that may or may not have been instituted.

The least expensive 2-year colleges (tuition and fees), on average, are in California at $1,270 per year, followed by New Mexico at $1,724 per year.

The most expensive 2-year colleges (tuition and fees), again, on average, are in Tennessee at $16,937 per year, and then New Hampshire at $15,335 per year.

On average, the least expensive 4-year college tuition and fees are for public in-state students in Florida, at $4,463 per year.

A close second is Wyoming for 4-year public college tuition and fees for in-state students at $4,747.

The most expensive public 4-year schools for in-state students are in Vermont at $17,083 per year, followed by New Hampshire at $16,679 per year.

The least expensive public 4-year colleges for out-of-state students were in the District of Columbia at $12,704 per year, on average, followed by North Dakota at $13,936 per year.

On the other hand, the most expensive public 4-year colleges for out-of-state students were in Vermont, at $41,057 per year, followed by Michigan at $36,832 per year.

Meanwhile, the least expensive private 4-year colleges were in Idaho ($6,429 per year) followed by Utah ($7,600 per year).

The most expensive average college tuition and fees, overall, were at private 4-year colleges in Massachusetts at $47,980 per year, followed closely by Vermont at $46,445 per year.

Average College Tuition by State (2019-2020) (Table)

State | Public 4-year College, In-state | Public 4-year College, Out-of-State | Private 4-year College | Public 2-year College, In-state | Public 2-year College, Out-of-State
Alabama | $10,323 | $26,517 | $16,743 | $4,854 | $9,700
Alaska | 8,297 | 26,767 | 19,682 | n/a | n/a
Arizona | 11,072 | 27,417 | 12,895 | 2,151 | 7,640
Arkansas | 8,689 | 21,460 | 23,875 | 3,398 | 4,680
California | 8,192 | 32,177 | 37,009 | 1,270 | 8,190
Colorado | 9,144 | 30,773 | 23,791 | 3,355 | 7,100
Connecticut | 13,886 | 35,197 | 43,242 | 4,516 | 13,490
Delaware | 11,091 | 31,582 | 14,858 | n/a | n/a
District of Columbia | 6,020 | 12,704 | 44,134 | n/a | n/a
Florida | 4,463 | 18,514 | 27,381 | 2,506 | 9,110
Georgia | 7,457 | 23,167 | 29,752 | 3,156 | 8,390
Hawaii | 10,109 | 31,774 | 17,977 | 3,225 | 8,390
Idaho | 7,518 | 24,845 | 6,429 | 3,335 | 8,290
Illinois | 14,445 | 29,515 | 35,570 | 4,035 | 11,450
Indiana | 9,268 | 29,533 | 34,263 | 4,500 | 8,660
Iowa | 9,373 | 27,346 | 35,019 | 5,306 | 6,660
Kansas | 9,088 | 23,745 | 24,179 | 3,542 | 4,690
Kentucky | 10,888 | 26,048 | 26,928 | 4,395 | 14,820
Louisiana | 9,571 | 22,128 | 39,482 | 4,166 | 8,280
Maine | 10,103 | 28,523 | 40,353 | 3,778 | 6,640
Maryland | 9,714 | 27,984 | 44,048 | 4,330 | 10,300
Massachusetts | 13,729 | 31,894 | 47,980 | 5,336 | 10,690
Michigan | 13,315 | 36,832 | 29,405 | 3,703 | 6,560
Minnesota | 11,748 | 24,442 | 34,321 | 5,566 | 6,150
Mississippi | 8,604 | 19,402 | 18,612 | 3,432 | 5,830
Missouri | 8,992 | 20,877 | 26,377 | 3,545 | 6,790
Montana | 6,967 | 25,239 | 31,724 | 3,871 | 8,590
Nebraska | 8,582 | 22,152 | 25,313 | 3,103 | 3,960
Nevada | 6,023 | 21,678 | 26,284 | n/a | n/a
New Hampshire | 16,679 | 30,594 | 33,446 | 7,130 | 15,330
New Jersey | 14,360 | 29,435 | 38,652 | 4,779 | 8,090
New Mexico | 7,152 | 19,181 | 25,363 | 1,724 | 6,620
New York | 8,467 | 22,669 | 41,404 | 5,476 | 9,220
North Carolina | 7,228 | 23,357 | 35,379 | 2,494 | 8,650
North Dakota | 8,628 | 13,936 | 15,732 | 5,073 | 6,030
Ohio | 9,902 | 24,830 | 34,009 | 4,330 | 7,520
Oklahoma | 8,009 | 21,695 | 29,429 | 4,150 | 9,480
Oregon | 10,813 | 32,068 | 42,202 | 4,881 | 8640
Pennsylvania | 15,565 | 30,222 | 42,812 | 5,348 | 13,480
Rhode Island | 13,105 | 30,871 | 43,919 | 4,700 | 12,540
South Carolina | 12,497 | 32,853 | 26,270 | 4,916 | 10,200
South Dakota | 8,978 | 12,866 | 25,353 | 6,469 | 6,040
Tennessee | 10,164 | 24,786 | 29,200 | 4,379 | 16,930
Texas | 8,598 | 24,889 | 36,014 | 2,380 | 6,370
Utah | 6,700 | 21,273 | 7,600 | 3,929 | 12,460
Vermont | 17,083 | 41,057 | 46,445 | 6,654 | 13,390
Virginia | 13,655 | 35,831 | 23,493 | 5,237 | 11,520
Washington | 7,168 | 30,155 | 39,791 | 4,468 | 6,500
West Virginia | 8,195 | 22,242 | 12,673 | 4,344 | 9,970
Wisconsin | 8,764 | 25,522 | 35,554 | 4,476 | 6,500
Wyoming | 4,747 | 14,803 | n/a | 4,136 | 10,100
Average | 9,349 | 27,023 | 32,769 | 3,377 | 8,120
| | | | |

Source: See Reference 4, for illustration purposes only

Average College Tuition over Time

In 1963, the total cost of a 4-year college education (for the total of all four years, including room and board plus tuition and required fees) was $5,144.

Accounting for inflation, this would be equivalent to approximately $42,220 in today’s dollars.

The tuition and required fees for a year of college were only $508, on average, in 1963.

Adjusted for inflation, this would still only be about $4,239.

In 2020, the cost was $101,584 for the total of all four years of a 4-year college degree.

In the 10 years between the 2008-2009 school year and the 2018-2019 school year, the cost of an undergraduate education (per year) increased by 28 percent at public colleges and by 29 percent at private non-profit colleges, adjusting for inflation.

On the other hand, during this same time period, the cost of at private for-profit colleges actually decreased by 6 percent when accounting for inflation.

The average cost of a year of school (including tuition, fees, room, and board) in 1985 was $4,885.

When adjusted for inflation, this would be approximately $11,369.

In 1985, a year at a public 2-year college (including tuition, fees, room, and board) would have cost $2,981, which would be $6,938 when adjusted for inflation.

That same year, the cost for a year at a public 4-year college, all in, would have cost $3,859, or $8981 accounting for inflation.

Also in 1985, a year at a private 4-year college would have cost $9,228, or $21,478 adjusting for inflation, and including tuition, fees, room, and board.

Average College Tuition for Graduate and Professional Degrees

The first year for which information is available for the cost of graduate school tuition and required fees at degree-granting postsecondary schools was 1989. Beginning in the 1999-2000 school year, percentiles started to be recorded, as well as a breakdown between non-profit and for-profit private schools.

In 1989, the average cost of graduate school tuition and required fees was $4,135 per year.

Adjusting for inflation, the average cost of one year of graduate school tuition in 1989 would equal approximately $8,377 per year in today’s dollars.

The average cost for a year of graduate school at a public school that year was $1,999, or about $4050 in today’s dollars.

The same year, the cost for graduate school at a private school was $7,881 per year, or about $15,966 if accounting for inflation.

Ten years later, in 1999, the average cost of one year of graduate school was $8,069, on average, or about $12,261 in today’s dollars.

That same year, the average year at public graduate school was $4,042, or $6,142 in today’s dollars.

In 1999, private schools on average were $13,821 per year of graduate school, which is approximately $21,000 in today’s dollars.

Non-profits private schools were actually significantly more expensive than for-profits, with the average cost of a year of graduate school at a non-profit being $14,123 in 1999 versus $9,611 at a for-profit school, or $21,460 versus $14,603 in today’s dollars.

In 1999, a year at a private non-profit graduate school was $4,512 (in 1999 dollars) more than a year at a private for-profit graduate school.

So in 1999, private non-profit graduate schools cost an average of 46.9% more than a private for-profit graduate school.

Most recently, as of the 2019-2020 school year, the average year at graduate school costs $19,792.

At a public school, the cost per year now averages $12,410.

The average cost at a private graduate school is now $26,597 per year.

The average cost per year is actually still higher at private non-profits at $28,430 per year, versus $14,289 per year at private for-profits.

Private non-profit graduate schools currently cost an average of $14,141 more than private for-profit graduate schools.

In other words, a year at a private non-profit graduate school currently costs approximately 98% more per year than a year at a private for-profit graduate school.

References

1. National Center for Educational Statistics Average Undergraduate Tuition

2. Education Data Initiative Average Cost of College and Tuition

3. NCES Table 348 Average Graduate and First Professional Tuition and Required Fees by Field of Study and Control of Institution

4. NCES Table 330.10 Average Undergraduate Tuition Fees, Room, and Board Rates, 1963 – 2020

5. NCES Table 330.50 Average and Percentiles of Graduate Tuition and Required Fees 1989 – 2020

6. College Data, What’s the Price Tag For a College Education

7. College Board Trends in College Pricing

8. NCES Price of Attending an Undergraduate Institution

9. US News, See the Average College Tuition in 2021-2022

10. Fidelity College Savings and Student Debt Study

Average Private College Tuition

Average Public College Tuition

Average College Tuition In-State Versus Out-of-State

Average College Tuition by State

Average College Tuition by State (2019-2020) (Table)

Average College Tuition over Time

Average College Tuition for Graduate and Professional Degrees

References

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is the Average College Tuition? +++ Updated For 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The highest cost schools tend to be in the Northeast. The lowest-cost schools are mostly located in the Plains and the South. The overall average cost of tuition and required fees in the 2019-2020 school year was $21,035 per year for a public 4-year college, for an in-state student.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every teacher knows that they will usually have a student in class who is difficult to manage and work with. Their behavior is usually hard to control and it can be extra work to get them to pay attention and stop distracting others. If you're studying to become a teacher, your courses will help you learn classroom management techniques that will prepare you for difficult students. Additionally, it's extremely valuable to learn about learning theories and recognize that there are different methods and thoughts about how people learn.

Behaviorism or the behavioral learning theory is a popular concept that focuses on how students learn. Behaviorism focuses on the idea that all behaviors are learned through interaction with the environment. This learning theory states that behaviors are learned from the environment, and says that innate or inherited factors have very little influence on behavior.

A common example of behaviorism is positive reinforcement. A student gets a small treat if they get 100% on their spelling test. In the future, students work hard and study for their test in order to get the reward.

Behaviorism is key for educators because it impacts how students react and behave in the classroom, and suggests that teachers can directly influence how their students behave. It also helps teachers understand that a student's home environment and lifestyle can be impacting their behavior, helping them see it objectively and work to assist with improvement.

Behaviorism started as a reaction against introspective psychology in the 19th century, which relied heavily on first-person accounts. J.B. Watson and B.F. Skinner rejected introspective methods as being subjective and unquantifiable. These psychologists wanted to focus on observable, quantifiable events and behaviors. They said that science should take into account only observable indicators. They helped bring psychology into higher relevance by showing that it could be accurately measured and understood, and it wasn't just based off opinions.

Watson and Skinner believed that if they were given a group of infants, the way they were raised and the environment they put them in would be the ultimate determining factor for how they acted, not their parents or their genetics.

Pavlov's Dogs is a popular behaviorism experiment. A group of dogs would hear a bell ring and then they would be given food. After enough time, when the bell would ring the dogs would salivate, expecting the food before they even saw it. This is exactly what behaviorism argues-that the things we experience and our environment are the drivers of how we act.

The stimulus-response sequence is a key element of understanding behaviorism. A stimulus is given, for example a bell rings, and the response is what happens next, a dog salivates or a pellet of food is given. Behavioral learning theory argues that even complex actions can be broken down into the stimulus-response.

In the classroom, the behavioral learning theory is key in understanding how to motivate and help students. Information is transferred from teachers to learners from a response to the right stimulus. Students are a passive participant in behavioral learning-teachers are giving them the information as an element of stimulus-response. Teachers use behaviorism to show students how they should react and respond to certain stimuli. This needs to be done in a repetitive way, to regularly remind students what behavior a teacher is looking for.

Positive reinforcement is key in the behavioral learning theory. Without positive reinforcement, students will quickly abandon their responses because they don't appear to be working. For example, if students are supposed to get a sticker every time they get an A on a test, and then teachers stop giving that positive reinforcement, less students may get A's on their tests, because the behavior isn't connected to a reward for them.

Repetition and positive reinforcement go hand-in-hand with the behavioral learning theory. Teachers often work to strike the right balance of repeating the situation and having the positive reinforcement come to show students why they should continue that behavior.

Motivation plays an important role in behavioral learning. Positive and negative reinforcement can be motivators for students. For example, a student who receives praise for a good test score is much more likely to learn the answers effectively than a student who receives no praise for a good test score. The student who receives no praise is experiencing negative reinforcement-their brain tells them that though they got a good grade, it didn't really matter, so the material of the test becomes unimportant to them. Conversely students who receive positive reinforcement see a direct correlation to continuing excellence, completely based on that response to a positive stimulus.

Interested in Education?

You could further your career with a degree from WGU.

Learn About Education Degrees

The behavioral learning theory and the social learning theory stem from similar ideas. The social learning theory agrees with the behavioral learning theory about outside influences on behavior. However, the social learning theory goes a step further and suggests that internal psychological processes are also an influence on behavior. Students or individuals may see things being done, but the social learning theory says that internal thoughts impact what behavior response comes out.

Behaviorism doesn't study or feature internal thought processes as an element of actions. Social learning argues that behavior is much more complicated than the simple stimulus and response of behaviorism. It suggests that students learn through observation, and then they consciously decide to imitate behavior. There are underlying emotions like peer pressure and a desire to fit in that impact behavior.

Teachers can implement behavioral learning strategy techniques in their classroom in many ways, including:

Drills. Teachers may practice skills using drill patterns to help students see the repetition and reinforcement that behavioral learning theory uses.

Question and answer. Teachers can use a question as a stimulus and answer as a response, gradually getting harder with questions to help students.

Guided practice. Teachers can be directly involved in helping students go through problems to give them the reinforcement and behavior demonstration you want them to follow.

Regular review. Reviews are important to behavioral learning theory. Going back over material and giving positive reinforcement will help students retain information much better.

Positive reinforcement. Behaviorist classrooms utilize positive reinforcement regularly. This can be in the form of verbal reinforcement and praise, reward systems, added privileges, and more.

While behaviorism is a great option for many teachers, there are some criticisms of this theory. Behaviorism is best for certain learning outcomes, like foreign languages and math, but aren't as effective for analytical and comprehensive learning.

Other critics of behavioral learning say that the theory doesn't encompass enough of human learning and behavior, and that it's not fully developed. Other theories have come forward that take behaviorism further, implying that there are many additional factors to consider when evaluating behavior.

If you are hoping to one day become a teacher, it's important to get the right degree and credentials to help you be prepared for success. It's also important to understand learning theories to be ready to take on students and the classroom. When you understand more about psychology and how students learn, you're much more likely to be successful as an educator.

Subscribe to the WGU Blog

Stay up-to-date with the latest articles, tips, and insights from the team at WGU

Our focus on your success starts with our focus on four high-demand fields: K-12 teaching and education, nursing and healthcare, information technology, and business. Every degree program at WGU is tied to a high-growth, highly rewarding career path. Which college fits you?

Want to see all the degrees WGU has to offer? View all degrees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Current teachers and those who are studying to become teachers need to understand how learning theories impact their students. The behavioral learning theory or behaviorism is a learning theory that greatly impacts students and how they act in the classroom. Learn more about the behavioral learning theory and how educators can utilize it to help students succeed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
blockquote>

For as long as human beings can remember, they have always been interested in what makes them who they are and what aspects of their being set each of them apart from others of their species. The answer according to behaviorists is nothing more than the world in which they grew up. Behaviorism is the theory that human nature can be fully understood by the laws inherent in the natural environment.
As one of the oldest theories of personality, behaviorism dates back to Descartes, who introduced the idea of a stimulus and called the person a machine dependent on external events whose soul was the ghost in the machine. Behaviorism takes this idea to another level. Although most theories operate to some degree on the assumption that humans have some sort of free will and are moral thinking entities, behaviorism refuses to acknowledge the internal workings of persons. In the mind of the behaviorist, persons are nothing more than simple mediators between behavior and the environment (Skinner, 1993, p 428).

The dismissal of the internal workings of human beings leads to one problem opponents have with the behavioral theory. This, along with its incapability of explaining the human phenomenon of language and memory, build a convincing case against behaviorism as a comprehensive theory. Yet although these criticisms indicate its comprehensive failure, they do not deny that behaviorism and its ideas have much to teach the world about the particular behaviors expressed by humankind.

The Theory of Behaviorism

Classical Conditioning
The Pavlovian experiment. While studying digestive reflexes in dogs, Russian scientist, Pavlov, made the discovery that led to the real beginnings of behavioral theory. He could reliably predict that dogs would salivate when food was placed in the mouth through a reflex called the "salivary reflex" in digestion. Yet he soon realized that, after time, the salivary reflex occurred even before the food was offered. Because the sound of the door and the sight of the attendant carrying the food "had repeatedly and reliably preceded the delivery of food to the mouth in the past," the dogs had transferred the reflex to these events (Schwartz & Lacy, 1982, p. 21). Thus, the dogs began salivating simply at the door's sound and the attendant's presence. Pavlov continued experimenting with the dogs using a tone to signal for food. He found that the results matched and the dogs had begun to salivate with the tone and without food (Schwartz & Lacy, 1982, pp. 20-24).
What Pavlov discovered was first order conditioning. In this process, a neutral stimulus that causes no natural response in an organism is associated with an unconditioned stimulus, an event that automatically or naturally causes a response. This usually temporal association causes the response to the unconditioned stimulus, the unconditioned response, to transfer to the neutral stimulus. The unconditioned stimulus no longer needs to be there for the response to occur in the presence of the formerly neutral stimulus. Given that this response is not natural and has to be learned, the response is now a conditioned response and the neutral stimulus is now a conditioned stimulus. In Pavlov's experiment the tone was the neutral stimulus that was associated with the unconditioned stimulus of food. The unconditioned response of salivation became a conditioned response to the newly conditioned stimulus of the tone (Beecroft, 1966, pp. 8-10).

Second order conditioning. When another neutral stimulus is introduced and associated with the conditioned stimulus, even further conditioning takes place. The conditioned response trained to occur only after the conditioned stimulus now transfers to the neutral stimulus making it another conditioned stimulus. Now the second conditioned stimulus can cause the response without both the first conditioned stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus. Thus, many new conditioned responses can be learned (Schwartz & Lacy, 1982, p 48).

When second order or even first order conditioning occur with frightening unconditioned stimuli, phobias or irrational fears develop. In a study performed by Watson and Rayner (1920), an intense fear of rats was generated in a little boy named Albert. Whenever Albert would reach for a rat, the researchers would make a loud noise and scare him. Through classical conditioning, Albert associated rats with the loud fearful noise and transferred his fear with the noise to fear of rats. He then went further and associated rats, which are furry, to all furry objects. Due to second order conditioning, little Albert formed an irrational fear of all furry objects (Mischel, 1993, pp. 298-299).

Modern classical conditioning. Whereas Pavlov and most of his contemporaries saw classical conditioning as learning that comes from exposing an organism to associations of environmental events, modern classical conditioning theorists, like R. A. Rescorla, prefer to define it in more specific terms. Rescorla emphasizes the fact that contiguity or a temporal relationship between the unconditioned stimulus and the conditioned stimulus is not enough for Pavlovian conditioning to occur. Instead, the conditioned stimulus must relate some information about the unconditioned stimulus (Rescorla, 1988, pp. 151-153).

The importance of this distinction can be seen in the experimental work done by Kamin (1969) and his blocking effect. In his experiment, rats were exposed to a tone followed by a shock. Following Pavlovian conditioning principles, the tone became a conditioned response. Yet, when the same rats were exposed to a tone and a light followed by a shock, no conditioning occurred with the light. This was because the tone had already related the information of the shock's arrival. So, any information the light would have given would have been useless. Even though the light was associated temporally with the shock, there was no conditioning because there was no information related (Schwartz & Lacy, 1982, p. 53).

Operant Conditioning
Thorndike's law of effect. Although evidence of classical conditioning was there, E. L. Thorndike did not believe that it was comprehensive because most behavior in the natural environment was not simple enough to be explained by Pavlov's theory. He conducted an experiment where he put a cat in a cage with a latch on the door and a piece of salmon outside of the cage. After first trying to reach through the cage and then scratching at the bars of the cage, the cat finally hit the latch on the door and the door opened. With the repetition of this experiment, the amount of time and effort spent on the futile activities of reaching and scratching by the cats became less and the releasing of the latch occurred sooner. Thorndike's analysis of this behavior was that the behavior that produced the desired effect became dominant and therefore, occurred faster in the next experiments. He argued that more complicated behavior was influenced by anticipated results, not by a triggering stimulus as Pavlov had supposed. This idea became known as the law of effect, and it provided the basis for Skinner's operant conditioning analysis of behavior (Schwartz & Lacy, 1982, pp. 24-26).
Skinner's positive and negative reinforcement. Although Thorndike developed the basic law of effect, Skinner took this law and constructed a research program around it. He based this program on the experiments he had conducted in his study of punishment and reward. According to Skinner, the behavior caused by the law of effect was called operant conditioning because the behavior of an organism changed or operated on the environment. There were no real environmental stimuli forcing a response from an organism as in classical conditioning. Operant conditioning consists of two important elements, the operant or response and the consequence. If the consequence is favorable or positively reinforcing, then the likelihood of another similar response is more than if the consequence is punishing (Mischel, 1993, pp. 304-308).

For instance, in Skinner's experiment a rat was put into a box with a lever. Each time the lever was depressed, food was released. As a result, the rat learned to press the lever to receive favorable consequences. However, when the food was replaced with shocks, the lever depressing stopped almost immediately due to punishing consequences. Similar results were produced by stopping the positive reinforcement of food altogether in a process called extinction, but the operant conditioned response decreased at a much slower rate than when punishment was used. This kind of operant conditioning occurs in the rewarding or punishing discipline action taken towards a child (Schwartz, 1982, pp. 27-53).

Discriminative stimuli. The effect stimuli have on an operant response is different than in Pavlovian conditioning because the stimuli do not cause the response. They simply guide the response towards a positive or negative consequence. These operant response stimuli are called discriminative stimuli because they discriminate between the good and the bad consequences and indicate what response will be the most fruitful. For instance, a red stoplight indicates that one should step on the brakes. Although there is nothing that naturally forces humans to stop at a red light, they do stop. This is because the red indicates that if they do not, negative consequences will follow (Schwartz & Lacey, 1982, pp. 30-31).

Avoidance theory. Although it is not always the case with discriminative stimuli, the red stop light stimuli and the appropriate stop response are also an example of the behavior known as avoidance-escape behavior. Put simply, the stimulus indicates that a negative consequence will follow if an action is not carried out, so the action is carried out. This may seem confusing given that extinction occurs in the sudden absence of any positive reinforcement. However, as shown in the experiments done by Rescorla and Solomon (1967), this is not the case. An animal was placed on one side of a partitioned box and trained to jump over the partition to avoid a shock. When the shock was removed, the animal retained its conditioned jumping behavior. Apparently in avoidant behavior, the escape or absence of reinforcement occurs because of a response. The animals in the box learned to expect shock if they did not respond or no shock if they did. Thus, the extinction occurred because they continued to respond to supposedly eliminate the shock (Schwartz & Lacey, 1982, 87-90).

Schedules of reinforcement. Another exception to the extinction rule is an operant conditioned response that has been conditioned by intermittent schedules of reinforcement. There are four types of intermittent schedules: fixed interval schedules that reinforce a response after a certain fixed amount of time, variable interval schedules that reinforce a response after an amount of time that varies from reinforcement to reinforcement, fixed ratio schedules that reinforce a response after a certain fixed number of responses have been made, and varied ratio schedules that reinforce a response after varied numbers of responses are made. As strange as it may seem, maintenance of behavior is actually increased on these intermittent schedules as opposed to continuously reinforced behavior. This is due to the fact that with these occasional reinforcement patterns, the extinction of reinforcement takes a long time to recognize. As soon as it is recognized though, another reinforcement occurs and the extinction of the reinforcement now takes even longer to recognize. Thus, intermittent schedules keep the organism "guessing" as to when the reinforcement will occur and will reinforce the behavior without the actual reinforcement taking place (Schwartz & Lacey, 1982, pp. 91-101).

Natural selection by consequences. In an attempt to convince his critics of the validity of his theory of operant conditioning, Skinner drew some interesting parallels between his theory and Darwin's theory of natural selection. According to Skinner, operant conditioning is nothing more than "a second kind of selection by consequences" (Skinner, 1984b, p. 477). He pointed out that although natural selection was necessary for the survival of the species, operant conditioning was necessary for an individual to learn. Also, evolutionary advances occurred because species with these advantages were more efficient in passing on the advantage, and operant conditioning occurs because certain reinforcements have affected the individual in a more efficient manner. Skinner goes on to draw the parallel between the evolution of living beings from molecules without the concept of life and the initiation of operant behavior from the environment without the concept of an independent mind. Finally, Skinner mentions how species adapt to the environment in the same way an individual adapts to a situation. By comparing these two theories, Skinner hoped to show that like the theory of natural selection, his contemporaries should accept the theory of operant behavior (Skinner, 1984b, pp. 477-481).

The Validity of Behaviorism

Criticisms of the Behaviorist Theory
Contradictions with the ideas of Darwin's natural selection. Whereas Darwin's theory has been widely accepted by most scientists, behaviorism is constantly coming under fire from critics. Indeed, this is why Skinner chooses to align his theory with Darwin's, to give credibility to his own. However, as B. Dahlbom (1984) points out, some ideas in Darwinism contradict Skinner's operant conditioning. Darwin believes humans are constantly improving themselves to gain better self-control. Yet, "to increase self-control means to increase liberty" or fee-will, something Skinner's very theory denies exists (Dahlbom, 1984, p. 486). Thus, the very base on which Skinner has formed his theory is a direct contradiction of Darwin's ideas (Dahlbom, 1984, pp. 484-486).
At the same time, as W. Wyrwicka (1984) shows, Skinner compares the positive reinforcement drive inherent in operant conditioning with Darwin's proposal of the natural selection drive inherent in nature. According to Wyrwicka, the natural selection drive is dependent on what is necessary for the survival of the species, and "the consequences of operant behavior are not so much survival as sensory gratification" (Wyrwicka, 1984, p. 502). Given that what is most pleasurable to the senses is not always what is best for the survival of one's genes, often these two drives contradict each other. For example, smoking crack and participating in dangerous sports are two popular activities despite the hazards they pose to one's life. Obviously, Darwinism is more accepted than operant conditioning. By contradicting Darwin's ideas, Skinner's operant conditioning theory loses much of the support Skinner hoped to gain with his parallels (Wyrwicka, 1984, pp. 501-502).

Failure to show adequate generalizability in human behavior. Although many experiments have been done showing evidence of both Pavlovian conditioning and operant conditioning, all of these experiments have been based on animals and their behavior. K. Boulding (1984) questions Skinner's application of principles of animal behavior to the much more complex human behavior. In using animals as substitutes for humans in the exploration of human behavior, Skinner is making the big assumption that general laws relating to the behavior of animals can be applied to describe the complex relations in the human world. If this assumption proves false, then the entire foundation upon which behaviorism rests will come crashing down. More experiments with human participants must be done to prove the validity of this theory (Boulding, 1984 pp. 483-484).

Inability to explain the development of human language. Although Skinner's ideas on operant conditioning are able to explain phobias and neurosis, they are sadly lacking in applicability to the more complex human behaviors of language and memory. The theory's inability to explain the language phenomenon has in fact drawn a large number of critics to dismiss the theory. Although Skinner has responded to the criticism, his arguments remain weak and relatively unproven. Whereas public objective stimuli act as operational stimuli for the verbal responses, private stimuli or concepts such as "I'm hungry" are harder to explain. According to Skinner, the acquisition of verbal responses for private stimuli can be explained in four ways. First, he claims that private stimuli and the community do not need a connection. As long as there are some sort of public stimuli that can be associated with the private stimuli, a child can learn. Also, the public can deduce the private stimuli through nonverbal signs, such as groaning and facial expressions. However this association of public and private events can often be misinterpreted. His third theory that certain public and private stimuli are identical gives a very short list of identical stimuli, and his final theory that private stimuli can be generalized to public stimuli with coinciding characteristics gives very inaccurate results (Skinner, 1984a, pp. 511-517).

M. E. P. Seligman offers an interesting alternative to Skinner's weak explanation of language. He explains that although operational and classical conditioning are important, there is a third principle involved in determining the behavior of an organism. This is the genetic preparedness of an organism to associate certain stimuli or reinforcers to responses. An organism brings with it to an experiment certain equipment and tendencies decided by genetics, which cause certain conditioned stimuli and unconditioned stimuli to be more or less associable. Therefore, the organism is more or less prepared by evolution to relate the two stimuli. Seligman classifies these tendencies towards association into three categories: Prepared or easily able to associate two stimuli, unprepared or somewhat difficult to associate two stimuli , and contraprepared or unable to associate two stimuli. The problem with behaviorists, he argues, is that they have mainly concentrated their experiments on unprepared sets of stimuli such as lights and shock. They provide the small amount of input needed for the unprepared association to take place and then create laws that generalize unprepared behavior to all types behavior. Thus, although the behaviorist laws may hold true for the unprepared sets of stimuli tested in labs, they have trouble explaining behaviors that are prepared (Seligman, 1970, pp. 406-408).

In order to prove his theory, Seligman gives an example of an experiment conducted by Rozin and Garcia (1971) in which rats were fed saccharine tasting water while bright light flashed and noise sounded. At the same time, the rats were treated with X-ray radiation to cause nausea and illness. When the rats became ill a few hours later, they acquired an aversion to saccharine tasting water but not to light or noise. According to Seligman (1970), evolution had prepared the rats to associate taste with illness, but had contraprepared the association between noise/light and illness (pp. 411-412).

When Seligman's theory of preparedness is applied to the language problem, it gives a plausible solution. Language is simply composed of well-prepared stimuli that are easily able to create relationships between verbal words and ideas or objects. In fact, they are so easy that often there is extremely little input needed for the associations to be made. But if this theory is taken as the truth, which it cannot be without further research, then this implies that there is a genetic factor that along with the environment creates personality. This rejects the comprehensive behaviorism theory so espoused by Skinner and his collaborators (Seligman, 1970, pp. 416-417).

Applications of a Valid Behaviorist Theory
The evidence shown, particularly that of language, points to the failure of behaviorism as a comprehensive theory. However, there is nothing that denies behaviorism is valid when limited to certain areas of psychology. Given that numerous experiments have shown there is merit in the behaviorist theory, certain ideas of this theory can be used in the treatment of disorders.
With the ideas of behaviorism, vast improvements can be made in the treatment of neurosis and phobias. Rather than focusing on the root of the problem like a traditional psychopathologist, a behaviorist could focus on eliminating the symptom by bringing classical and operant conditioning into play. By reinforcing the extinction of the symptom, the psychopathological illness of the patient could be eliminated (Schwartz & Lacy, 1982, pp. 194-196).

Vast improvements could also be made in the areas of treating alcoholism and nicotine addiction. Using Pavlovian principles, addiction occurs because of both the pleasurable physiological effects of nicotine and alcohol, unconditioned stimuli, and the taste of nicotine and alcohol, conditioned stimuli. When one stops ingesting the substance, as in traditional treatment procedures, it is extremely easy to become addicted again. After all, "simply not presenting a conditioned stimulus does not eliminate the relation between it and the unconditioned stimuli" (Schwartz & Lacy, 1982, p. 197). With just one use, the taste and unconditioned pleasurable effects become associated with each other again. However, if the taste of nicotine or alcohol, the conditioned response, is paired with a new unpleasant effect such as nausea and vomiting, the result will be a negative aversion to the substances in question. Such was the case when both an old alcoholic man and a young chain smoking adolescent were given apomorphine paired with alcohol and nicotine, respectively. The drug apomorphine induced severe feelings of nausea and vomiting which caused both of them to give up these addictive substances for life. This process is called counterconditioning and has had remarkable success in curing addictions (Schwartz & Lacy, 1982, pp. 196-200).

Conclusion: On the Theory of Behaviorism

The criticisms posed by this paper have long plagued the theory of behaviorism and prevented it from being truly acceptable by most scientists. In fact, today there are very few scientists who believe that the behaviorist theory is as comprehensive as it was once thought to be. In spite of the holes in the theory, there can be no doubt as to the usefulness of the research done in the field of behaviorism. One cannot totally dismiss the effect the environment has on behavior nor the role it plays in developing personality as shown through this research. Indeed, when the theory of behaviorism is applied to combat certain disorders, the results have shown it to be remarkably effective. Therefore, although comprehensive behaviorism must be abandoned, its ideas cannot be ignored when applied to certain situations.

References

Beecroft, R. S. (1966). Method in classical conditioning. In R. S. Beecroft, Classical conditioning (pp. 8-26). Goleta, CA: Psychonomic Press.
Boulding, K. E. (1984). B. F. Skinner: A dissident view. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 483-484.

Dahlbom, B. (1984). Skinner, selection, and self-control. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 484-486.

Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention and conditioning. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.), Punishment and aversive behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Mischel, W. (1993). Behavioral conceptions. In W. Mischel, Introduction to personality (pp. 295-316). New York: Harcourt Brace.

Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Pavlovlian conditioning: It's not what you think it is. American Psychologist, 43, 151-160.

Rescorla, R. A., & Solomon, R. L. (1967). Two-process learning theory: Relations between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning. Psychological Review, 74, 151-182.

Rozin, P., & Garcia, J. (1971). Specific hungers and poison avoidance as adaptive specializations of learning. Psychological Review, 78, 459-486.

Schwartz, B., & Lacey, H. (1982). Behaviorism, science, and human nature. New York: Norton.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1970). On the generality of the laws of learning. Psychological Review, 77, 406-418.

Skinner, B. F. (1931). The concept of the reflex in the description of behavior. Journal of General Psychology, 5, 427-458.

Skinner, B. F. (1984a). Operational analysis of psychological terms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 511-517.

Skinner, B. F. (1984b). Selection by consequences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 477-481.

Wyrwicka, W. (1984). Natural selection and operant behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 501-502.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cognitive Learning Theory: Definition & Examples | University of Phoenix

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cognitive learning theory, which focuses on the internal processes surrounding information and memory, is one of the most adaptable of the five major learning theories. Read on to learn how understanding cognitive learning can help educators and students alike.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A trusted reference in the field of psychology, offering more than 25,000 clear and authoritative entries.

# data[].attributes.body
The most important one of course...