This book took me a long time to get through, though it's quite short, mostly because I found it annoying. I thought DeMille's points were poorly argued and I didn't really agree with most of it. I agree with a few of his broad ideas, but I find that he has either poor or vague practical advice on how to actually educate, day-to-day. I agree that classics are good and important, but I do not think they are the be-all and end-all of education. He seems to think that if parents read classics, they will automatically instill a love for classics in their kids and that they will know how to educate their children without any more practical advice. He also gives "read the classics" as to the answer to almost all educational questions. Want to teach your children math? Read classic math texts, then you will miraculously know how to teach your children math. DeMille thinks no real formal education should start until about age 8, which I also disagree with. My younger children love to "do school" and have learned a lot through formal education before the age of 8. They're also learning good habits and routines to help them with formal education as they get older. Demille suggests that you should "inspire, not require" in education. I think it is important to inspire kids, but I also think requiring kids to do hard things is an important part of education and life. I also think that his idea of basically leaving teenagers to their own devices and expecting them to want to study and research for many hours everyday is unrealistic as well as just plain wrong. Some kids may thrive on this, but I would suspect very few. I do agree with the need for mentors in education. I also agree with modeling a life-long love of learning to your kids. Overall, I was very disappointed in this book and fail to understand its popularity with some parts of the homeschooling population.

Disclaimer: I was homeschooled growing up, and I think that's why I didn't experience the gut-punching realization/soul-on-fire moment so many other readers did.

That being said, continue reading to know how I feel about this book.

There's soooooo much in this book about how to help kids (and yourself!) enjoy learning and bloom in obtaining knowledge. I loved all the titles he threw out of excellent books. I took copious notes on them and then realized they were listed in the various indexes of the book! So don't make the same mistake I did; explore the indexes!

DeMille has some truly excellent ideas and observations regarding how education has happened in the past and what's going on with it now. He gave a wonderful review, and is spot on, regarding the four areas literature falls into (bent, broken, whole and healing) and I love how he explains that ideology and I've thought of it often.

Also, the whole idea of helping older kids learn deeply about the areas they're interested in is a great one. I think many individuals could go far if they tried educating themselves that way. I also agreed with his ideas of how we actually learn (not by teachers, only ourselves).

He DOES seem to focus A LOT on philosophical, literature, and historical books. It's obvious he leans towards those subjects, which is okay, but I felt like he left a lot of science/math books that had been written during the past 200 years out. Besides heavily preferring ancient authors, he also favors Dickens, L'Amour, and several of the Russian greats. It isn't bad that he favors them, but it was interesting to me.

In all, this book is a wonderful one that can be highly motivating for parents, teachers, teens, and anyone else who is looking for ways of gaining an education. I absolutely recommend it!

This is a great introduction to Leadership Education. Oliver DeMille is right on in his explanation of how the American system of education is lacking. I will be incorporating these ideas into our homeschooling.

I find it somewhat funny that I lived in Utah for three years and didn't finally read this book until I'd moved to Massachusetts.

The book takes a fairly strong stance about public education, and it's clear that DeMille holds the political view I think of as Utah Libertarian, but looking past those strong convictions, his assertions sound solid, and I plan to implement some of his ideas into my own homeschool curriculum.

This is basically a variation on a Classical Education as outlined by Jesse Wise and Susan Wise Bauer in their The Well-Trained Mind. Since I'm already a big fan of Classical Education, TJEd isn't that huge a change. The big difference is that DeMille has distilled it to the point that reading the classics is critical for the teacher, and that learning from the classics is critical for the student. Everything, according to DeMille, should be learned by reading the classics, including math, science, and foreign language.

The idea is that the Founders of the United States were all better educated than anyone taught during the second half of the 20th century on (during which time the US education system has increasingly relied on a conveyor-belt method of educating youth, according to DeMille and others), and that by going back to the way the Founders were taught, we can groom more effective, more eloquent, and more moral leaders.

I think I can agree with his basic premises, particularly that a teacher's job is to inspire a student to do her/his own learning. A teacher can't force a child to acquire knowledge, and she certainly can't force a child to learn to think critically and logically address issues. The best a teacher can do is to encourage a student to want to learn things on her/his own.

I like his suggestion that time should be structured, but that what the child does during that time should not. We need, says DeMille, to enforce daily study times and routines, but that within those times, there should be a fair amount of freedom for children to study where their interests lead. In this model, the teacher's role is to help a child see the connections between different academic disciplines within her/his particular area of interest.

So, if the child wants to learn about castles, the teacher can help him find information about the medieval period (politics, religion, scientific advances), principles of math and physics that go into castle building, the music popular during the time, the lifestyle of those living within the castle walls compared to that of the people outside the castle walls, etc. This helps children learn that facts in the real world aren't actually compartmentalized into disciplines and that the separations we've made are a fairly recent innovation.

This last part isn't a new idea, but the idea of the structured time during which the child leads the activities is a new one for me, and one that I think will work very well with the way my daughter learns.

In addition, I definitely want to read more classics on my own. I'd already determined that this is a sizable gap in my own education. Because I want to include classics in my children's education, I need to read them myself so I can properly mentor my children and help them to determine where to start and then where to go next as they begin to tackle the classics.

I don't plan on scrapping all other curricula and relying solely on classics. I still plan to use a math curriculum and I don't plan on strictly adhering to DeMille's Phases of Learning. But I think it makes perfect sense, along with other ways of exploring a subject, to go to the source and experience the way the great thinkers think and read the way great writers write. This is similar to the Suzuki Method in music: you expose children to great music early and often, and this helps them emulate the best musicians. I think the same would go for great thinkers and great writers.

If I want my children to be well-educated and great thinkers, it makes sense for them to learn from the best.

An alternative solution to the modern day education dilemma, this book dives into what type of education a future leader should receive. Radically counterculture, Oliver DeMille portrays an excellent vision for a proper education.

Read the classics. What books have stood the test of time? Why have they? The timeless insights from authors such as Plato, Confucius, and Kant provide a deeper understanding of the world we live in. Through out history there are men and women who have escaped their cultures dogmas and assumptions to create a philosophy that transcends time and space. Building on the foundations they laid, we must develop our own philosophy that is rooted firmly in truth.

Oliver argues the fundamental idea that learning how to think is more valuable then learning what to think. His philosophy on education is superb. Why is the modern education system flawed? It is simple. It is an education that perpetuates the status quo.. On purpose. The institution defines the philosophy of its members, and then enacts an education model to best serve its needs. It's the "conveyor belt" method. Creating robots, the current education system attempts to design the minds of those enrolled. How does one escape this culture hypnosis?

Last thought - is their an actual solution to the education dilemma? No. It will never be accomplished through any enterprise with interests other than the growth and enlightenment of its students. That being said, what institution could not be affected by outside interests? Even personal agendas of the the faculty, which are not always pure, destroy the education. The question of how to create a perfect education model is irrelevant - It is impossible. However, Oliver's ideas of how to give students the best possible education is phenomenal. Teach a student how to learn, and how to love to learn. That's the idea.

I have homeschooled, and will most likely be sending my girls to school next year. My favorite take away from this book is the only true education is self education. Whether I send my kids to public or private school, or homeschool them, I hope to give my children some ownership and a reason why learning is so amazing, something I hope they will never stop wanting to do.

This book made so much sense to me. The method of educating is natural and it seemed like I was being reminded of something I had already known.

The biggest idea I took from this book was the importance of immersing your children in great books... classics... this book has become a foundational one in our homeschool. Amazing.

This book annoyed and disappointed me in so many ways.
First, he holds up George Wythe College as the end-all of the best possible education ever (according to his non-research-substantiated ideas). Having had some interaction with people who went to George Wythe, I have to say I'm underwhelmed.
Two, he recommends not starting to get serious about educating your child until they're seven or eight. What a waste of their early years, the years when they'll actually listen to you! And I doubt there are many modern teenagers willing to spend TWELVE hours per day on their studies once they hit the "scholar" stage that the author describes. I suspect most people who use TJEd find that they have to put their kids into public schools by high school because this method of education is "not working for their individual child". Could it be that the method of education is simply unsound? Could it be that Mr. Van DeMille is the emperor with no clothes on? Go ahead, look into his academic credentials. They seem pretty wispy to me.
Three, as a math major in college, I'm disgusted by the feeble plan he sets out for math education. "Read Euclid and Newton in the original." That's not going to teach you how to quickly perform basic arithmetic, geometry, and algebra operations. Learning the principles of calculus won't help you apply them if you can't even factor a binomial. If a person doesn't mind their child turning out functionally-illiterate at math, then this book is for you!
Four, what parent has time to read everything they want their child to read? Aren't adults supposed to be earning money, serving in their community, running a household, caring for younger children, etc.? Adults are no longer children, and their primary job in life is no longer learning to prepare for the responsibilities of adulthood. (If the adult doesn't feel he or she gained enough knowledge in their earlier life, then perhaps they should consider the possibility that the book's author is hoodwinking them into following a philosophy that helps him sell a lot of books and lecture programs of dubious efficacy.) If a child's only serious reading is that which their parents can also read so as to be able to discuss the book in a "mentoring" way, either the parent isn't doing enough adult work or the child isn't being exposed to enough material.
If you want to give your child a real classical education, consider reading The Well-Trained Mind and following it instead. After reading that book, Oliver Van DeMille looks like a cheap copycat.

The premise of this book is summed up by Charles W. Eliot's belief that a person can get a good liberal arts education by reading great books and that attending an expensive university is unnecessary. There. I've given you everything of value in this book. Now you don't need to read it.

While I like the premise of the book, I found the rest to just be fluff and right wing ideology. It should also be noted that I am the only member of my family without a bachelor's degree or better, but I am working to become well read, so I may just be fond of the premise because of my own shortcomings.

I’ve heard about this educational philosophy for years, so I finally had the library get this book for me. I think the author has some good ideas, but I think his foundation is lacking. It seems that the purpose of education (in this philosophy) is to make leaders or statesmen. At first the philosophy sounded appealing, but when I realized it doesn’t really address what it is to be a human being, it fell apart for me. The methods are probably good, but the purpose behind them seems like it could easily create arrogance. In fact, many of these methods are similar to Charlotte Mason’s methods. The principles are different, though. All in all, I am intrigued and will look into the philosophy more, simply because I love to read educational philosophy. However, I doubt I will adopt it since it seems to be inadequately thought through in the foundations and principles.

This book was fabulous!! My friend Julia, a homeschooler, recommended it when she found out I was going to be homeschooling Miriam next year. It discusses our current educational system as compared to the education of the founding fathers, especially the most educated of the bunch: Thomas Jefferson. Basically, the author says that the best education is gained through reading books that are deemed classics because they contribute to our knowledge of human nature and right and wrong. After you read a classic, you should write about you learned and discuss what you learned with someone. The author labels that someone a "mentor." The mentor can then ask probing questions, which leads to more thinking, reading, and writing, and possibly some oral presentations. At the end of all that, you start reading another classic. And so on. And so on. Until you have a firmly established belief in what is wrong and right and what actions will lead to positive consequences and which actions will not, and basically answers to all other big life questions. Fascinating, fabulous, I loved it. The first "classic" Miriam and I will start with--Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle. Now that woman teaches some life lessons!
Which reminds me, the author included several lists of "classics" in an appendix and I loved that the lists included The Sackett series, Walking Drum, and Lonesome Gods, as well as Ender's Game, Anne of Green Gables, The Black Stallion Series, and several others that don't usually end up on your typical "classics" lists. As the author said, it is all about what lessons you are trying to teach and which books teach those ideas.