I really enjoyed the first part of this book and agree with much of what Demille has to say about the problems with public education. I agree that education should be individualized and that children need great mentors. I agree that studying the classics should be a very important part of one's education.

I was disappointed to find in the last part of the book that he recommends using only classic books to teach your children....including foreign language, math and science. Sounds nice, but I just don't think it would work. I also disagree that we should "inspire, not require." I think we need to do both. These are children we are talking about, they are not just going to read the classics and teach themselves math of their own volition - no matter how much we inspire them. Maybe there are some who will. Everyone learns differently. I am glad I read this book as I did take away a few good ideas, but I just think this system is unrealistic and won't be effective for most people.

I'm incredibly inspired to read and study the Classics. My heart is full when I think of the influence I might offer in inspiring my grandchildren and their education. My knees knock when I consider the roll of leader or statesmen that I may well be called on to fill in my community, and of course my family - but I also cherish the thought. Many are lamenting the setting sun that they see as today's America. It's not a done deal. We can each play a role in preserving or restoring the principles on which this country was founded. What if we took seriously our responsibility to hand off to the next generation something better than we ourselves received? We can do that. We must.

So yes, you could say I enjoyed this read... :)

I thought this was a snow job. He took two worthy ideas -- reading and discussing the classics and mentoring your children -- and went overboard. While I think both of those ideas are worthy things to do, I don't believe that making them your child's whole education is a good idea. And I don't believe his theory that doing so produces great leaders.

Thomas Jefferson may have been educated that way, but some of his other examples fall flat. Joan of Arc was an illiterate peasant who was leading an army at 15 and dead at 19; I don't buy that she studied classics. And there are many examples of great leaders who weren't well educated: George Washington for starters. I also believe that like faith, leadership is an active principle, that while it may help to read about it, you also have to practice it. Just reading about great leaders and high moral ideas is not going to get you there.

For someome who is "well educated" I thought the writing was mediocre. I thought he was long on philosophy and short on method. He used a lot of anecdotal evidence, and no empirical or clinical evidence. And I thought his list of "classics" had some questionable books on it. I know that there are people that love this, but obviously I'm not a convert to TJEd.

This is the book that turned me into a lover of classics. It is the book that made me quit reading People magazine. It made me very aware of what I was feeding my mind.