The predicament of general education is universal. Why? Because the uselessness of general education and the utilitarian nature of practical education have collided, the heterogeneity of general education runs counter to the unity of practical education. Hector wanted to teach diverse, flesh-and-blood students who could see history emotionally; Tom wanted to teach students who saw history rationally, subdued, and had the restraint of British elites. (Although the requirement for students is to get rid of uniformity and make unconventional propositions. But as Shakespeare said: there is nothing more ordinary than wanting to be extraordinary.)

What is general education? It is an education that cultivates the whole person. How is life complete? It's not a life that looks at the world coldly, it's not purely rational, it's not utilitarian, it's a life that is rich in emotion and has an artistic perspective, experienced and felt. But the performance of this kind of education is largely art education that seems to be completely useless, which is why Hector's classes are often dismissed as useless. Use the "gadgets" you learned in Hector's class at the end of your paper to pretend deep, Tom said. But this is by no means the original meaning of general education. That is a purposeless purposiveness, which should be useless in itself.

But Tom's ultimate goal is not the above-mentioned cold education, but a rebellion against traditional British education, which can also be said to be a return to traditional British education. The so-called rebellion is intellectual, while the return is formal. How I long to have the same teacher as Tom, taking a group of students for walks and discussions on sunny afternoons or not. Isn't that what I aspire to, the education JS Muller received from his father?

The translation should be wrong, Hector's general study should be general education, general education.

View more about The History Boys reviews