Linda Kerber argued in the mid-1980's that after the American Revolution (1775-1783), an ideology of "republican motherhood" resulted in a...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Linda Kerber argued in the mid-1980's that after the American Revolution (1775-1783), an ideology of "republican motherhood" resulted in a surge of educational opportunities for women in the United States. Kerber maintained that the leaders of the new nation wanted women to be educated in order to raise politically virtuous sons. A virtuous citizenry was considered essential to the success of the country's republican form of government; virtue was to be instilled not only by churches and schools, but by families, where the mother's role was crucial. Thus, according to Kerber, motherhood became pivotal to the fate of the republic, providing justification for an unprecedented attention to female education.
Introduction of the republican motherhood thesis dramatically changed historiography. Prior to Kerber's work, educational historians barely mentioned women and girls; Thomas Woody's 1929 work is the notable exception. Examining newspaper advertisements for academies, Woody found that educational opportunities increased for both girls and boys around 1750. Pointing to "An Essay on Woman" (1753) as reflecting a shift in view, Woody also claimed that practical education for females had many advocates before the Revolution. Woody's evidence challenges the notion that the Revolution changed attitudes regarding female education, although it may have accelerated earlier trends. Historians' reliance on Kerber's "republican motherhood" thesis may have obscured the presence of these trends, making it difficult to determine to what extent the Revolution really changed women's lives.
According to the passage, within the field of educational history, Thomas Woody's 1929 work was
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Linda Kerber argued in the mid-1980's that after the American Revolution (1775-1783), an ideology of "republican motherhood" resulted in a surge of educational opportunities for women in the United States. | What it says: A scholar named Linda Kerber made a claim in the 1980s about women's education improving after the American Revolution due to a new idea about mothers' role. What it does: Introduces the main theory we'll be examining Source/Type: Scholar's argument/claim Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous information to connect to Visualization: Timeline: 1775-1783 (Revolution) → 1784+ (surge in women's educational opportunities) Reading Strategy Insight: We're being introduced to the central theory that the passage will examine. Note that this is just one scholar's argument - we should expect to see how others respond to it. What We Know So Far: Kerber's basic claim about post-Revolution increase in women's education What We Don't Know Yet: Details about why this happened, evidence for/against this claim, what other scholars think |
| Kerber maintained that the leaders of the new nation wanted women to be educated in order to raise politically virtuous sons. | What it says: According to Kerber, the reason was that government leaders wanted mothers to educate their sons to be good citizens. What it does: Provides the reasoning behind Kerber's claim Source/Type: Kerber's explanation/reasoning Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 1 by explaining the WHY behind the "surge of educational opportunities." This is elaboration, not new complexity - it's filling in the logical reason for what we already learned. Visualization: Chain of reasoning: National leaders → want virtuous citizens → need educated mothers → provide education to women Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here - this sentence is helping us understand the first sentence better, not adding a completely new idea. |
| A virtuous citizenry was considered essential to the success of the country's republican form of government; virtue was to be instilled not only by churches and schools, but by families, where the mother's role was crucial. | What it says: Good citizens were seen as necessary for the new government to work, and mothers in families were considered key to creating these good citizens (along with churches and schools). What it does: Further explains the logic behind the educational surge Source/Type: Historical context/background belief of the time period Connection to Previous Sentences: This continues building on the same logical chain from sentences 1-2. Still elaborating on the same core idea - we're getting more detail about WHY leaders cared about educating women. Visualization: Sources of virtue in new republic: Churches (33%) + Schools (33%) + Families/Mothers (33%) = Successful republican government Reading Strategy Insight: We're still in the "explanation phase" of Kerber's argument. Three sentences, one clear idea being developed. |
| Thus, according to Kerber, motherhood became pivotal to the fate of the republic, providing justification for an unprecedented attention to female education. | What it says: So Kerber concluded that because mothers were so important to the country's success, this justified giving women much more educational attention than ever before. What it does: Summarizes and concludes Kerber's complete argument Source/Type: Summary of Kerber's conclusion Connection to Previous Sentences: The word "Thus" signals this is a summary/conclusion of everything we've learned so far. This is NOT new information - it's wrapping up sentences 1-3 into one clear conclusion. Visualization: Complete cycle: Mothers crucial for republic → Women need education → "Unprecedented attention to female education" Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is simplification, not new complexity! The author is helping us by restating the entire argument in one clear sentence. "Thus" is your friend - it means summary time. What We Know So Far: Kerber's complete argument about republican motherhood causing increased women's education What We Don't Know Yet: What impact this theory had, whether other scholars agree or disagree |
| Introduction of the republican motherhood thesis dramatically changed historiography. | What it says: When Kerber introduced this theory, it significantly changed how historians wrote about this topic. What it does: Transitions to discussing the impact/importance of Kerber's theory Source/Type: Author's assessment of Kerber's influence Connection to Previous Sentences: This shifts from "what Kerber argued" to "what happened when Kerber made this argument." We're moving from content to impact, but still talking about the same theory. Visualization: Before Kerber's thesis: Historiography looked like [A] → After: Historiography looked like [B] (dramatically different) Reading Strategy Insight: We're transitioning to a new phase but still centered on the same core topic - Kerber's republican motherhood idea. This builds our understanding of why this theory matters. |
| Prior to Kerber's work, educational historians barely mentioned women and girls; Thomas Woody's 1929 work is the notable exception. | What it says: Before Kerber, historians hardly wrote about women's education at all, except for one historian named Thomas Woody in 1929. What it does: Provides specific evidence for how Kerber changed historiography Source/Type: Historical fact about academic scholarship Connection to Previous Sentences: This gives us the specific BEFORE picture to contrast with sentence 5's claim about "dramatic change." This is supporting evidence for the previous sentence's claim. Visualization: Pre-Kerber historiography: 95% ignore women's education + 5% (Thomas Woody 1929) mention it Reading Strategy Insight: We've now been introduced to a second scholar (Woody), but he's presented as context for understanding Kerber's impact. We should expect to learn more about what Woody found. What We Know So Far: Kerber's theory, its impact on scholarship, and that Woody was unusual for studying women's education early What We Don't Know Yet: What exactly Woody discovered, how his findings relate to Kerber's argument |
| Examining newspaper advertisements for academies, Woody found that educational opportunities increased for both girls and boys around 1750. | What it says: Woody looked at newspaper ads for schools and discovered that education for both girls and boys grew around 1750. What it does: Provides Woody's methodology and key finding Source/Type: Woody's research findings Connection to Previous Sentences: This follows naturally from the mention of Woody in sentence 6. Now we're learning what Woody actually discovered. Notice: 1750 vs. 1775-1783 (Revolution) - this suggests education increased BEFORE the Revolution. Visualization: Timeline: 1750 (educational opportunities increase per Woody) vs. 1775-1783 (Revolution per Kerber's focus) Reading Strategy Insight: This is starting to present a potential challenge to Kerber's timeline. Woody found changes in 1750, but Kerber focused on post-1783. We should expect this tension to be developed. |
| Pointing to "An Essay on Woman" (1753) as reflecting a shift in view, Woody also claimed that practical education for females had many advocates before the Revolution. | What it says: Woody used a 1753 essay as evidence and argued that many people supported practical education for women even before the Revolution started. What it does: Provides additional evidence supporting Woody's pre-Revolution claim Source/Type: More of Woody's research findings and argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This continues building Woody's case from sentence 7. More evidence for the same point - that educational changes began before the Revolution, not after it. Visualization: Timeline expanding: 1750 (opportunities increase) + 1753 (Essay shows attitude shift) + "before the Revolution" (many advocates) vs. Kerber's focus on post-1783 Reading Strategy Insight: Woody's evidence is consistently pointing to pre-Revolution changes, which challenges Kerber's emphasis on post-Revolution changes. The tension is becoming clearer. |
| Woody's evidence challenges the notion that the Revolution changed attitudes regarding female education, although it may have accelerated earlier trends. | What it says: Woody's findings go against the idea that the Revolution changed how people thought about women's education, though the Revolution might have sped up changes that were already happening. What it does: Explicitly states the contradiction between Woody and Kerber's views Source/Type: Author's analysis of the scholarly disagreement Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the explicit conclusion about what Woody's evidence means in relation to Kerber's theory. The word "challenges" directly states the tension we've been building toward. Visualization: Kerber's view: Revolution → Changed attitudes → More education Woody's view: Attitudes already changing → Revolution maybe accelerated → More education Reading Strategy Insight: This sentence makes the disagreement explicit rather than leaving us to infer it. The author is helping us see the clear contrast between the two scholars' views. |
| Historians' reliance on Kerber's "republican motherhood" thesis may have obscured the presence of these trends, making it difficult to determine to what extent the Revolution really changed women's lives. | What it says: Because historians have focused so much on Kerber's theory, they might have missed the earlier trends that Woody found, so now we can't be sure how much the Revolution actually changed things for women. What it does: Concludes with the overall problem/implication of this scholarly disagreement Source/Type: Author's final assessment/conclusion Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the final conclusion that brings together the entire passage. It explains why the Kerber vs. Woody disagreement matters - it has affected how subsequent historians understand the topic. Visualization: Problem: Heavy focus on Kerber's theory → Overlooking Woody's evidence → Unclear picture of Revolution's actual impact Reading Strategy Insight: This ending shows us why this academic debate matters. It's not just "he said, she said" - it's about how scholarly focus can sometimes obscure important evidence. What We Now Understand: The complete scholarly debate between Kerber (post-Revolution changes) and Woody (pre-Revolution trends), plus why this disagreement has important implications for historical understanding |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To show how one influential historical theory might have caused scholars to overlook important earlier evidence, making it harder to understand what really happened.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by contrasting two different scholarly perspectives:
- First, the author explains Kerber's influential theory that the American Revolution led to more educational opportunities for women because leaders wanted mothers to raise good citizens.
- Next, the author describes how Kerber's theory dramatically changed how historians wrote about women's education.
- Then, the author introduces an earlier scholar named Woody who found evidence that educational opportunities for women were already increasing before the Revolution, not after it.
- Finally, the author concludes that historians' heavy focus on Kerber's theory may have caused them to miss Woody's earlier findings, creating confusion about how much the Revolution actually changed women's lives.
Main Point:
When historians focus too heavily on one popular theory, they can overlook other important evidence, which makes it difficult to get a clear and accurate picture of what really happened in history.
3. Question Analysis:
The question asks us to identify what made Thomas Woody's 1929 work distinctive "within the field of educational history." We need to find what set his work apart from other educational historians of his time.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we know that:
- Prior to Kerber's work in the 1980s, "educational historians barely mentioned women and girls"
- Thomas Woody's 1929 work was "the notable exception" to this general pattern
- Woody examined newspaper advertisements and found educational opportunities increased for both girls and boys around 1750
- Woody claimed that practical education for females had many advocates before the Revolution
The key insight from our analysis is that Woody was unusual because he focused on women's education when other historians largely ignored it.
Prethinking:
The passage structure clearly establishes that Woody was exceptional specifically because he studied women's education when others didn't. The phrase "notable exception" directly tells us what made him different from other educational historians. While the passage mentions his methodology (newspaper advertisements) and time period focus, these are presented as details of his research, not what made him exceptional in the field.
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage mentions Woody used newspaper advertisements as evidence, but doesn't suggest this methodology was innovative or unusual
• His use of newspaper ads is presented as a research method, not as what made him exceptional in the field
• The passage emphasizes his focus on women's education, not his research methods
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did the passage say his methodology was groundbreaking?
→ The passage mentions his method but emphasizes his subject matter (women's education) as what made him exceptional
1. Should I focus on the specific research techniques mentioned?
→ Focus on what the passage explicitly identifies as making him a "notable exception"
Why It's Wrong:
• While Woody did examine the period before the Revolution (around 1750), this isn't presented as what made him exceptional
• The passage focuses on his subject matter (women's education), not his time period choice
• Many educational historians could have studied pre-Revolutionary periods without being called exceptional
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Since Woody studied 1750 and the Revolution was 1775-1783, was his time period focus what made him special?
→ The passage emphasizes his focus on women's education as the distinguishing factor, not the time period
1. Does studying earlier periods automatically make a historian exceptional?
→ No, the passage specifically states he was exceptional because educational historians "barely mentioned women and girls"
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage describes Woody's work as focusing on educational practices and opportunities, not just attitudes
• He examined concrete evidence like newspaper advertisements for academies
• The distinction between attitudes and practices isn't what the passage identifies as making him exceptional
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did Woody focus more on attitudes than practices?
→ He studied both, examining advertisements (practices) and citing essays about changing views (attitudes)
1. Is the attitude vs. practice distinction important here?
→ The passage identifies his focus on women's education generally as what made him exceptional
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't suggest Woody's claims about boys' education were controversial
• He found that opportunities increased for "both girls and boys," which seems straightforward, not controversial
• The passage presents his work as solid research, not as generating controversy
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Since Woody disagreed with Kerber's timeline, was his work controversial?
→ The controversy is about timing and causes, not about boys' educational opportunities specifically
1. Does finding increased opportunities for boys seem controversial?
→ No, this appears to be an uncontroversial finding; the focus is on his attention to girls' education
Why It's Right:
• The passage explicitly states that "educational historians barely mentioned women and girls" before Kerber
• Woody's 1929 work is called "the notable exception" to this pattern
• His research specifically examined educational opportunities for girls, making him atypical among educational historians
• The entire context emphasizes how unusual it was for historians to study women's education
Key Evidence: "Prior to Kerber's work, educational historians barely mentioned women and girls; Thomas Woody's 1929 work is the notable exception."