Introduction
The education system in the United States has undergone large-scale changes since the late nineteenth century. The most significant development came about in 1892 when the Committee of Tens was formed (Mackenzie, 1894) and formulated the conventions of curriculum and student placement in high schools and colleges. In America today, it’s frequently accepted that most high school graduates will apply and attend colleges or universities. Higher education institutions emerged during this time and developed levels of philanthropic generosity that universities kept track of, and campus architecture began to make a mark.
Despite the revolutionary steps taken, some people view the development as a historical accident, described later in the paper, since it forces students to study course material that may not help them in future or that they may not be familiar with. Another contrasting viewpoint is that of the philosophy of education, as some researchers do not recognize it as an educational discipline (Barnett, 2004). The paper also discusses the need to introduce new college buildings and campuses.
Theme And Support
The author demonstrates what it takes to make a significant college in the nineteenth century. A financial base was substantial. Numerous donors with deep pockets secretly supplied colleges who consented to take their name, like Rice University, Stanford University, or Tulane University. The author’s focal points were the classroom building, dorm rooms, and employee workplaces. Universities went on to build new buildings and campuses to incorporate new academic disciplines and research, increase faculty and students, and tackle environmental issues (Lidsky, 2002).
Committee Of Ten
The establishment of the Committee of Ten (CoT) was to frame an education plan independent of Britain. The committee compiled subcommittees with distinguished scientists and philosophers for nine different high school subjects. Each subcommittee was obliged to formulate recommendations for high school curriculum (Sheppard & Robbins, 2002). CoT took a recommendation from each subcommittee and devised a high school curriculum plan (Mackenzie, 1894).
The Committee was established to lay and consolidate the foundation of standards for higher education institutions so that students from different disciplines at high schools could be placed in appropriate fields of study in colleges. At times, students were also divided into ethnic groups and working groups, which proved later to be a setback to CoT.
Article From Library Search
The purpose of this article is to explore the development of the education system since 1890, its consequences in general, and the impact on teachers in particular (Flynn, James, Mathien, Mitchell, & Whalen, 2017). According to the author, only a small proportion of students attended high school before 1900, but the standardization of the curriculum increased the number of students significantly. Besides local students, immigrant influx became a routine. As a result, sciences were weighed less in comparison to humanities and linguistics.
Despite the high enrollment numbers, the author expresses disappointment that the education system has confined the role of the teacher to the dissemination of knowledge. The author maintains that teachers should impart free thinking and critical analysis and encourage the creation of knowledge, but it has not been in practice even after over a century since CoT was formed. Furthermore, the issue of less emphasis being paid to sciences, especially physics, is highlighted (Sheppard & Robbins, 2002). The author labels the current system of education as a historical accident because it lacks intentional design.
Conclusion
The efforts in the development of the education system have proved fruitful, which is evident from the state of the current world with sophisticated technology and a comprehensive set of conventions to deal with any issue. As explained in the paper, the period of 1890-1910 has seen the most remarkable endeavour that revolutionized the education system and shaped the standards of education followed even today. Still, commentators have shown contrasting viewpoints in response to the major changes since 1892.
References
Barnett, R. (2004). The purposes of higher education and the changing face of academia. London Review of Education, 2(1), 61-73.
Daley, B. J., & Cervero, R. M. (2016). Learning as the basis for continuing professional education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2016(151), 19-29.
Engerman, D. C. (2015). The Pedagogical Purposes of Interdisciplinary Social Science: A View from Area Studies in the United States. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 51(1), 78-92.
Flynn, J., James, R., Mathien, T., Mitchell, P., & Whalen, S. (2017). THE OVERLOOKED CONTEXT: Pedagogies for Engagement and Empowerment at the Community College. Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue, 19.
Lidsky, A. J. (2002). A perspective on campus planning. New Directions for Higher Education, 2002(119), 69-76.
Mackenzie, J. C. (1894). The report of the committee of ten. The School Review, 2(3), 146-155.
Sheppard, K., & Robbins, D. M. (2002). Lessons from the Committee of Ten. The Physics Teacher, 40(7), 426-431.
Stalcup, A. M. (2016). Some ruminations on graduate students. Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 408(23), 6239-6243.
Table: Number Of Articles
| Thelin’s Terminology | Search Terminology | Number of Articles |
| Presidential presence | University presidents | 1 |
| College presidents | 1 | |
| Professors as professional experts | University professors | 1 |
| Pedagogy | College Teaching | 1 |
| Professional schools | Professional Education | 1 |
| Curriculum | College Curriculum | 1 |
| University Curriculum | ||
| Professionalization of students | Graduate students | 1 |
| Facilities | Campus planning | |
| College planning | 1 | |
| University Planning | ||
| The dynamics of the academic enterprise | University management | 0 |
