I picked this up at the library because of the interesting cover. Its small size indicated an easy read, though glancing at the table of contents I suspected I would not like the author's conclusions very much, not being a fan of secular humanism, though open minded in general. Reading the first couple of chapters, however, I was favorably impressed with the author's well written thinking on the subject. In the end, I would say that this book has more substance than most attempts in this area and is also clearly written. So worth reading.

On the other hand, its perhaps unnecessary, but noticeable attempt at arguing that life as a whole has sufficient meaning outside of belief in God comes up fundamentally empty handed, as it must. Yet I mostly agree with the author's well meaning conclusions about the teaching of humanities, but with certain reservations. Importantly, I question whether, without at least acknowledging that people can indeed reaffirm belief in God, when delving into the meaning of life,one can truly be open to and show due respect for belief in God, contrary to several of the author's comments and protestations that political correctness is self defeating. I would like to see a humanities course which honestly reflected the development of human thought such that neither a atheist nor theist, without an ax to grind, could object as biased. Perhaps an impossibility these days. The very name "secular humanism" seems a politically charge one that holds unnecessary bias. Sorry, guess I'm not the Ivy League type.

As much as the author seems like a decent chap, one still gets the impression his philosophy of life is well designed for the affluent and bright. Forget about common human nature, on the plus side. What about the sick, the poor, the lame? What is that person's meaning of life? The author naturally fails to say. Why not give religion its due for at least being (and perhaps the author would disagree) universal and eternal in nature compared to secular humanism, which yes, does suffer from political correctness and other trendy confines associated with the liberal, affluent, materialistic (in the philosophical sense) myopia of much of US academia. If nothing is universal or eternal, then when the unavoidable dash of political correctness etc. in thrown in to poison the pot, there does not seem to be a valid answer to what is fundamentally in common, one which is not under attack by some favored minority interest group or post-modern nihilist. The author's pitiful offer of human commonality in the fact that we die is not very inspiring, to say the very least.

Nevertheless, with some reservations and limitations, a fairly interesting and well written book coming from the precincts of elite academia.

I read "Education's End" after the glowing recommendation Charles Murray gave it in Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality. I thought that Dr. Kronman made some interesting arguments, but I was very much turned off by his treatment of religion throughout the book.

He criticizes religion as "mindless obscurantism" and dismisses the idea that there is one answer to the meaning of life that actually *IS* better than all competing ones. He also claims that to have religious faith one must "sacrifice the intellect" as if reason and faith were set in opposition to each other, rather than being complementary ways of knowing. He argues that religion would "have us surrender our humanity" if we acknowledge a being greater than ourselves. He writes: "It is not God that needs to be remembered. It is man. Only the recollection of humanity is an adequate response to the meaninglessness that haunts us....This, and only this, has any real promise of leading us out of the spiritual crisis in which we find ourselves today."

The type of secular humanism for which Dr. Kronman argues in "Education's End" may absolutely be better than the current dismal situation of the humanities in today's universities. What is True, Good, and Beautiful may be found in secular works as well as in religious ones (though one of course must be careful to reject what is false in them). But secular humanism isn't the best solution to the spiritual crisis that plagues modern society. Humans cannot save themselves, only God can.

This book is a must read for anyone that is contemplating graduate school in one of the social sciences or humanities. Professor Kronman objectively explains the emphasis on the so-called "research model" that sometimes seems to be more interersted in statistics for their own sake rather than reasonaed substance.

Education's End is fascinating and provides a persuasive argument for the restoration of liberal education. Kronman argues that the central role of the humanities should be to enable undergraduates to address the question of the meaning of life. He traces the historical development of colleges and universities as they have moved from the antebellum colleges with their theistic answers to this fundamental question and through the phase where secular humanism offered alternative answers. According to Kornman, the humanities in our institutions of higher education have recently been neutered by the dual domination of the academic research ideal and political correctness. His book concludes with an optimistic chapter predicting the return of secular humanism with the diminution of political correctness, the increasing hunger for answers to the question of the meaning of life, and the inability of traditional religions to provide answers to this question.
Kronman's central arguments are insightful and persuasive but some of his supporting arguments are overly simplistic. A minor point is that he states that nineteenth century German universities were first and most influential in promoting research as an academic ideal. In fact, academic specialization began in Scotland when the regenting system was abandoned at the University of Edinburgh in 1707 and at the University of Glasgow in 1727. Some of the chairs at Glasgow supporting specialization and the dates of their establishment were: mathematics (1691); botany and anatomy (1704); and medicine (1713). The discipline of chemistry flourished in Scotland during the second half of the eighteenth century.
A major point is that Kronman uses a rather broad brush in dealing with those who believe in God, at one point casting into one group "the fundamentalist Protestant churches in America, the jihadist wing of Islam and the Pope." Jihadists are as Islamic as the IRA were Roman Catholic. Elsewhere, he suggests that members of organized religion cannot participate in the great conversation because their bigotry prohibits them from recognizing the positions of those of other religions or of secular humanists. Some of his general statements may lead the reader to believe that this characterization applies to all believers of all the world's great religions. Yale may be an exception but the majority of students at many universities who profess a faith in God would find themselves excluded from the dialogue Professor Kronman so passionately promotes.

This book is, in short, an argument for reviving a curriculum in secular humanism in undergraduate studies. He begins with the argument that purpose of college is to encourage the young student to ask the the big questions on the meaning of life. He seems to believe that there are sufficient numbers of adults working in colleges today who have an interest and ability in doing this. He also does not appreciate the emergent spiritual values inherent in the study of the sciences. It is an interesting book (along the lines of Allen Bloom) advocating a restructuring of higher education that will never happen.