The Importance of a Dual Curriculum in a Yeshiva

Robert Aumann receiving the Nobel Prize

As noted on Rabbi Gil Student’s website, Torah Musings, Professors Israel Kirzner, Robert Aumann and Aaron Twerski have each submitted affidavits to the Supreme Court of the State of New York on behalf of PEARLS (Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools). PEARLS is  trying to stop the state education department from implementing their new educational guidelines for Yeshivos.

The purpose of these 3 highly distinguished gentleman was to demonstrate the value of a Yeshiva education. Their credentials cannot be questioned. They are each at the top of their game. Experts in their fields.

Professor Kirzner is Emeritus Professor of Economics at NYU and has published many scholarly articles on economics, one of which was translated into 10 languages.

Professor Aumann is the 2005 Nobel Prize winner for Economics.

Professor Twerski was until recently the Dean of Hofstra University Law School.

Each of these three high achievers attended Yeshivos that offered a dual religious secular studies program. And they all attribute much of their success to the rigors of their religious studies. And argue that the status quo ante should not be changed.

There is not a doubt in my mind that the religious studies of the typical day school adds mightily to one’s education. Not only with respect to understanding what Judaism is all about. Not only about how to practice Judaism properly. Nor even about the importance of spending one’s day in a religious environment. All of which are vital if one is to retain their commitment to observant Judaism.  

Even though those are all very important benefits of a Yeshiva education, they are not the only ones.

The primary focus of study in Yeshivos is Gemarah. Which among other things involves the extensive use of logic and critical thinking. The diligent study of Gemarah sharpens the mind to think analytically. Most Yeshiva students gain immeasurably in that regard. A fact that does not go unnoticed in higher education. A very successful lawyer I know told me that the University of Chicago’s Law school (where he received his law degree) actually prefers Yeshiva students – recognizing the advantages they get in Yeshivos.

(That there are many Yeshiva students  that don’t succeed and fall through the cracks is true and as of yet an unsolved problem.  But that is beyond the scope of the post. The point here is that for the majority that do not fall though the cracks, there is no doubt about this particular advantage.)

These three professors make that argument quite effectively, even if only by measuring their level of success.

I completely agree with them about the importance of the religious side of that dual program. Even if I were to leave out all the benefits but the last one, it is still a valuable education which provides a  tool that will help those seeking a higher education. I therefore agree that the status quo ante should be maintained. The typical dual curriculum of the past should remain the same.

What I disagree with is a single curriculum consisting of only religious studies. Which is what many Chasidic Yeshivos offer. This is what actually brought about The New York State Education department (NYSED) to re-evaluate and change their requirements to the point that if implemented as understood would severely reduce the amount of time spent on religious studies. 

If those Chasidic yeshivas had offered a dual curriculum, those changes would have never been made. The fact that NYSED was moved to do so by people that may have had ulterior motives is irrelevant. (If that was indeed the case. I remain unconvinced that they do have ulterior motives despite some of their harsh rhetoric against those who oppose them).

Which brings me to a portion of Professor Twerski’s affidavit – with which I take issue. Considering his own education, I am actually a bit surprised that he defended Yeshivos that offer few if any secular studies. 

Professor Twerski obviously attended a yeshiva with a dual curriculum. You don’t become dean of a Law school without a decent secular education. But when touting the success of the Chasidic community, he points to the owners of B&H who are wildly successful despite their lack of one. Their high level of success is not the norm. It is an exception to the norm. While there may be more than one successful Chasidic entrepreneur, they are clearly not in the majority. 

He mentions that there are accountants and other types of successful business professionals that are Chasidim. That might be because some Chasidic yeshivas do offer a dual curriculum Or that there are Chasidim that are very bright and can catch up after they leave their Yeshivas. And then go on to succeed in those fields. I tend to doubt that the vast majority of Chasidim that did not have the benefit of a secular curriculum are as successful as Professor Twerski indicates.

He also mentions the success of his children: 

(W)e wanted our nine children to benefit from an intense Chasidic education. Each and every one of them are highly productive members of society. They are Talmud scholars and are engaged in a broad range of endeavors. Some are teachers, others are involved in commerce - all are highly successful. 

All well and good. But he does not say whether they had anywhere near the same education he had. That they are all successful does not tell us how many without a secular curriculum are like them.  My guess is that there are quite a few that are nowhere near as succesful.

What this all means to me is that while we must fight for the kind of dual curriculum that has been the standard in Yeshivos for many decades, we must also oppose a curriculum that does not offer anything but a religious one. My hope is that wiser heads prevail and that New York State revise their requirements to the status quo ante and at the same time no longer ignore those schools that do not adhere to them.