I'd like you to consider the following article by Louis Menand entitled "Live and Learn."
Most of us believe that college plays an imperative role on the path to our successes as adults.
Why? What is the inherent value of college? In fact, what is the value of education?
Louis Menand attempts to debate the answers to these very questions. I'm curious to your reflections of this article. Please address Menand's points, his arguments, your beliefs, your questions, and your comments of other student responses. Let's get a debate going ladies and gentlemen.
In the article, Louis Menand discusses and debates the value of education after a student asked him, "Why did we have to buy this book?" Menand offers three different types of theories:
ReplyDeleteTheory 1 discusses that people go to college because it is an indicator that they have a higher education than those who do not attend college. Basically, people go to college so that when they graduate, they are seen a success rather than a failure, in a larger world.
Theory 2 discusses that people go to college so they can learn things they will not learn outside of college. It means that people will learn what they need to know in order to be successful. College exposes them to the material they need to know depending on the careers they choose.
Menand says that theories 1 and 2 only address the education of the liberal arts variety. He believes that theories 1 and 2 do not apply to students who aren't majoring in humanities. Instead he proposes the 3rd theory:
"The theory that fits their situation—Theory 3—is that advanced economies demand specialized knowledge and skills, and, since high school is aimed at the general learner, college is where people can be taught what they need in order to enter a vocation…"
Students are being forced to take humanities courses regardless of their program. (For example, students in science programs forced to take three english courses.)
The 3rd theory is that college provides us with knowledge for today's jobs. He also writes, "The system appears to be drawing in large numbers of people who have no firm career goals but failing to help them acquire focus." This suggests colleges are not doing a good job operating on this theory.
I think Menand's purpose in this article is to remind us that everyone has different education goals and views on education, which is why we need a variety of education options.
Theories 1 and 2 are both false as demonstrated by many well-known people in the world who did not go to college or dropped out of college yet are still successful like Steve Jobs, thus people dont go to colleges for the education. People go to colleges because they haven't choosen a career pawth and are still searching for the right one for them or their career requires them to go to college. College education are important only because society puts an importance on it. People are seen as better if they have a college degree than without but it is not necessary in order for people to succeed in life.
DeleteI believe that education is valued in our society because society uses education to measure our success. Individuals, such as Steven Jobs, are the few exceptions to this simply because they are more intelligent and creative. However, for the majority of us, we must work hard in school and attend college to be successful. Theory 1 holds because it is true that we all look down on those who did not attend college in some sort of way. We tend to have the mentality that those we attend college are, generally, more intelligent and receive a higher form of education, than those that did not. Theory 2 holds because the purpose of college is to prep us for our position and occupation in society. College is suppose to help us figure out our future careers and to mold us into a respectable citizen with our respected jobs in society. Society places a huge emphasizes and important on education because college gives us the knowledge we need to succeed in our future careers. Most of us attend college because we want to gain further knowledge and gain further exposure to the outside world. However, the pressure imposed on us is self- destructive because what are the significance of learning courses that do not play a role in our future jobs? We take so many forced classes that are actually going to be very meaningless in our future.
DeleteI agree that society plays a huge factor in the importance of college education but I don't agree that it is a bad thing. There is no harm in more knowledge, in fact, it only promotes awareness. Why should we only take the classes that affect our future jobs? Just because someone majors in accounting doesn't mean they shouldn't know about the history of the country s/he lives in or what makes the Earth go round. The saying "Ignorance is bliss" applies to this case because taking these "forced" classes might open one's eyes to a whole new world. For this reason, I lean more towards Menad's second theory where college is there as a means to make every adult well-rounded in their knowledge. There are things that every adult should know(like how many world wars we've been in)and college is the best "delivery system". In the process of acquiring awareness of all those different subjects, one might find one where they exceptionally excel or take an interest in, thus securing one for a brighter future.
DeleteI agree with Karen when she says that most students attend college to gain knowledge and further exposure to the outside world. The initial drive for students is to receive a general education that covers a wide variety of fields for their own interests. But then they realize that whatever they are pursing has none or little value for their future. If the knowledge they are gaining could only get them low paying jobs, then what is the point of learning the material? They will look to receive education that will benefit their future careers and pay well so that they can live luxuriously and without any worries. That is the reason why students choose courses that they need in order to qualify for high-paying jobs, which will eventually lead to a happier life. This pressure forces people to alter their course of direction to a new direction, regardless of whether or not they are satisfied with the change. However, if someone who has followed this path receives a job that is highly paid, but they resent it, then this path will not lead a happy life. Some people choose to follow a career that they enjoy doing, regardless of the pay. This will lead to a more satisfied life and they learn to cope with not living their dreams of a luxurious life.
DeleteMost people believe that colleges play an important role towards the path of success. Why is that? I personally believe that this is due to what we see in our lives and through experiences. My parents always told me that college was the right thing to do. They always compared those who went to college and those who receeved little or no education and it seems that those with the education always have the upper hand. Even on certain tests and application forms, you are asked whether your parents went to college,etc. Therefore college is an important factor in our lives.
DeleteIn response to Edward's comment, I really disagree. Yes, it is true that some people like Steve Jobs didn't finish college and are still successful, but if you think about it, how many people in the world are capable of this? That's why I agree with Karen that the majority of us need to work hard. We're not like Bill Gates.
Thats why so many people need to go to college and in general school. They need to further their learning in order to succeed. There are things that you can't just learn at home or in the outside world. It is only possible through the teachings of professors in colleges. That's why I really agree with the second theory that Menand talked about- that colleges teach what is not usually out in the outside world. I feel as if the point of college is to take what you learn from there and take it to further improve society.
Louis Menand gives three theories about what college is. His first theory is that college is a process to sort out the intelligent individuals from the rest to help the professional schools and employers find the best students. His second theory is that college is there to teach students things that they would never otherwise learn on their own in the outside world. And his third theory states that college is where students go to learn the specialized knowledge and skills they need to enter a vocation.
ReplyDeleteIn my family, the debate over the purpose of colleges has been going on for several months. My mother would lean more towards the second theory. She believes college is an experience, so you have to go to the best one to get the full impact of it. My grandparents agree with the third theory (mostly because they want me to stay closer to home). They keep saying that I should go to the nearby community colleges. They think that as long as I come out with a well-paying job, the name of the college isn’t that important.
It first I believed in the third theory because I thought that every college would have a similar curriculum so by going to a big-shot college, I’d only be going for the name. After discussing this with my neighbor, a Brown graduate, she convinced me that in a better school, teachers would be more qualified and more motivated to teach their subjects well. Menand claims that teachers will make their classes more exciting and give less work in order to make the students happier since happy students are directly related to good student course evaluations which in turn are related to higher compensation. Less work however would lead to less learning.
I started disliking the third theory because of my grandparents. If I end up going to the community college, I feel like my high school education would have been a waste. Why did I bother going to the best high school in New York City if I’m going to go to a mediocre college? So I started considering my mom’s idea. But immediately after opening my mind up to that idea, I shot it down. I don’t like thinking of college as just an experience. It makes college seem like some party where you get drunk for the first time. I feel like there should be more meat to the definition of what college is.
The first theory also falls in the same category as the second. There’s not enough substance to that definition. If college is a place to sort out the intelligent people, what makes it any different from high school? It scares me to think of college as just another four years of high school, but it also scares me to think of it as something less. Last year’s graduates are telling me that high school is much harder than college. I think college should be a challenge.
The definition of college shouldn’t fall into just one of the three theories, but all. And more. College has a unique and specific purpose for every individual. The most accurate definition would be the vaguest.
I agree with Alisa's point that it is scary if college is like high school all over again. (That is like four years of competing for the highest grades just to get into a college to repeat this process all over again.)
DeleteIn my opinion, high school is mainly forced learning. We're forced to take all these different subjects from history to physics even if we do not want to major in those areas.
I feel college should be different; it shouldn't be "high school" all over again in terms of sorting out intelligent people, but to learn something in order to accomplish a goal. We should be able to abandon the high school curriculum where we are forced to take all these different subjects, and be able to take classes we want to take..so there isn't much "forced" learning.
I agree with Menand’s third theory and with Emily’s comment as well, that college should provide us with the opportunity to lock onto our specific interests and hone the skills we need to begin professional careers in those fields, something that has been denied us in high school curriculums. There is a definite advantage to being able to cast off excess course work that we wouldn’t otherwise need to know. But this kind of curriculum would only apply to those who have already declared their majors, and not, as Menand suggests, to the increasing number of students whose major is “Undecided”, which, according to Alisa, is why the standards at some colleges are so lax.
DeleteIn this regard, I disagree with Emily and Karen’s comments, that “[science] students are being forced to take humanities courses” and that we will be taking “so many forced classes that are going to be meaningless in our future”. College students are not mandated to take highly specialized courses in each and every subject. Core English and science classes are usually on the easier side of the spectrum. Science students are not required to take AP Shakespearean Lit, and English students are not required to take Calculus-based Physics or Mechanical Engineering. There should be, and there is, a bit of give and take on both sides, which still gives room for students to explore their respective interests. The purpose of both high school and college should be to introduce us to different material so that we can get a feel of what we’re interested in and eventually take that interest and develop it into a career. There is no “force” involved until the student has established what he or she will be pursuing in the future. The same applies to the “undecideds” in college, who are under increased pressure to choose a major, and in order to accomplish that, they would have to be immersed in a variety of subjects.
Once a student has chosen a path, however, the value of one type of class should not be considered null and void simply because it focuses on something that student might not be as interested in. A student might not necessarily benefit from the material being taught, but from the skills being used in a class. A neurosurgeon would not need to quote Shakespeare during an operation, and a business major would certainly not be required to name all the parts of the kidney during a sales pitch.
But what’s the appeal in a graduate who only lives and breathes biomedical engineering, or a writer who feels the need to wax poetic in every single one of his articles? After all, isn’t the goal to be a well-rounded individual? Isn’t that what colleges and prospective employers are supposedly looking for? A med student can take his analytical skills from a literature class and apply it to a patient displaying symptoms of various disorders, and a journalist can take his technical and graphing skills from a statistics course and use them to create a more concrete basis for his article. Regardless of whether these students were “forced” to take classes unrelated to their majors, they still benefitted from these classes and as a result have become better doctors and journalists, something that would not have been possible unless they had taken classes that led them to step out of their comfort zones in college.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons that my parents came to America was to provide their children with a better education. Having never attended college themselves, my parents saw the great successes that people with higher educations achieved. All the top jobs were occupied by the elite class, who could afford to attend college. That is why my parents put such a strong emphasis on one's education: in their eyes, a higher education translates to a higher pay check and standard of living. As mentioned by Menand in his article, college was initially reserved for the elite, but ever since 1945, its doors have been opened up to virtually anyone who attempts to apply. College is essential because of the value that it holds for society, or more importantly, for employers. The unspoken truth is that if one does not attend college and receive some sort of degree, one will have a much lower chance of rising on the economic ladder. The inherent value of college is separated from the inherent value of education. The former is nothing but a label that everyone is now expected to hold, whereas the latter is something that one yearns for and searches for to satisfy an inner curiosity for knowledge.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely supported by statistics, http://www.earnmydegree.com/online-education/learning-center/education-value.html. Years ago, a college education was not essential, just like how the article and Karen Chen mention Steve Jobs as an example of someone who succeeded without college. He was of a different time though, there's this great book, The Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell, whom has a theory that luck played a huge part in his success. If Jobs was born today and did not attend college, there is a highly probably chance he would not have been as successful as he became.Today is a different time from Job's time. The way one differentiates between so many smart people is different too, being inherently smart is not enough. According to the article, in 1950, there were only 1.14 million students in public colleges and universities. Today, public colleges enroll almost 15 million students. With so many students, not all of them are going to get the top jobs. Just like how the SAT and other standardized testing is a way to differentiate between the thousands of students applying to Ivies, level of education is a way to differentiate between the millions trying to secure the top jobs.
DeleteThis idea that college has become essential to rise on the economic ladder is prevalent during the recession. An article in a recent issue of The Economist presents recent statistics about college enrollment, showing that the number has been surging for decades. In fact, 94% of parents expect their children to go to college. The number of enrollments is rising not only due to our parents’ and our presidents’ recommendations (President Obama advises everyone to get a college education), but also the need to be employed compels Americans to continue in higher education. During the 2010-2011 academic year, college enrollment is 59% throughout the nation, an increase of 2% since 2007-2008. High school graduates feel the need to attach economic value to their names, and they believe they would be able to do this by continuing their studies. Shirley is right: if one does not attend college, it becomes much more difficult for him/her to compete on the “economic ladder” with those who do choose to continue their education. With unemployment never failing to hit the young hard, Americans should feel the motivation to become students of higher education to attain some measurable place in society. Jennifer phrases it very well: one’s level of education allows an employer to differentiate him/her from someone else who is competing for the same position. If unemployment lets up soon, students would hopefully not need to be judged solely on their degree of education but rather their overall value as people.
DeleteI totally agree with you. What most of us will have in the future that Paris Hilton doesn't? A diploma from a top notch college. That's our most probable shot at the world since we don't have an estate to inherit. If you are one out of a million like Steve Jobs, congrats, but you are probably not. College and higher levels of education is the safest way to give us success, and most will succumb to the system, despite the skepticism.
DeleteI agree that how far we go in our education is used as a means to measure our success in life and predict our success in the future. But, this might not always be the most effective way. Take, for example, an extremely smart student who gets high grades in high school, but doesn't go to college vs a student who gets mediocre grades in high school but goes on to an Ivy League school. If employers look for people to hire through their educational history, then which person would they choose? Would they choose the former, because he got good grades on what is required and forced as curriculum or would they choose the latter because of the fact that he chooses to continue his education for 4 more years in a school whose name is known. I agree that the idea that someone goes to college is used to label a person rather than to actually help them learn more.
ReplyDeleteTiffany/ Period 4
I feel the only reason college is important is because society puts a big emphasis on it. That is its only inherent value. Society believes the "higher education" a person gets in college will make them more fit for their chosen field. I think all the book knowledge we get in college will not actually matter when we actually do our jobs. We will memorize the information we are given so we can pass tests, but then immediately forget that information afterwards. Also, your job will be a lot different from what you get taught. You can teach someone something a million times, but until they actually do it, they will not learn anything. I would prefer to apprentice to a professional in my chosen field. Then, I could learn from him and get work experience in that field at the same time. College is unnecessary and if it were not for the fact that society requires me to have a college degree to get a job, I would not even bother with it.
ReplyDeleteI find the entire school system in general to be pretty useless. We are taught a variety of subjects to give us a "rounded education." That only means we are getting useless information. Much of the information we learn in school, we will no doubt forget. On "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader," adults answer a variety of "easy" elementary school questions to win money. Most people fail to win the million dollar prize for answering 11 questions correctly. There were only two winners of the million dollars. The reason it is so hard is because most of we learn is useless and will never use again after we leave school.
Harry, you're absolutely correct when you say that the reason college is important is because of the emphasis society puts on it. Every parent wants their kid to get a college education. But how is studying at a college any different than reading textbooks on different subjects at home? Many students at Stuy take AP tests without taking the course. They just learn all the tested material themselves and do just as well as the students who had taken the course. Parents are willing to spend a quarter of a million dollars to send their children to elite colleges when their children can get all the knowledge and information they want from public libraries and the internet. The only reason parents are willing to spend that money is because of the respect their children will receive.
DeleteMenand's first theory is that college is a process to sort out the intelligent individuals from the rest to help the professional schools and employers find the best students and employees. But doing good in school does not mean you will be good at the job your applying for. A high GPA just means that the student can retain information long enough to do good on tests. A high GPA does not mean that a student can apply his knowledge in a lucrative manner. College does not separate the smart student from the dumb, but rather it separates the motivated from the unmotivated. Every student is capable of doing well, some just don't do well because they not concerned about their future. Doing well in college is a way to show your employers that you care about the subjects you are learning and you are a hard worker. But doing bad in college does not mean one is stupid, and doing well in college does not mean one is smart.
Menand's second theory states that college will teach students things that they would never learn on their own in the outside world. As I have stated earlier, students can learn anything they want. All they have to do is borrow a book or go online.
The third theory state that students go to college to learn the specialized knowledge and skills they need to enter a vocation. Students do go to college to learn certain skills, but having a college education does not mean that one can apply those skills. A student can learn all the stuff they learn in college by reading textbooks and be just as qualified for a job as the college graduate. But the employer would rather employ the college graduate rather than the self taught student. A student that had many internships but did not graduate college may be more qualified for a job because of experience, but the employer would employ the student who had finished college.
This just shows that college is just for a name. Going to college does not mean one is smarter or more qualified for a job. But because of the emphasis society places on college, everyone thinks college is indispensable.
Christine Luong in a previous post could not have phrased it any better. Although I do agree with you guys on how unrelated GPA is in correlating with intelligence, I disagree with your belief in the complete uselessness of taking classes not relevant to your future intended study. Why does one have to be ignorant and only know things one needs to know? Why can't we learn things for the sake of learning, just to know? On a personal level, freshman year we were all mandated to take classes such as Art Appreciation and Music Appreciation, which everyone, admittedly even me at the moment, found completely useless. Now though, when I am watching television or flipping through a random book, I find great satisfaction in being able to recognize Mozart's No. 40 or Pollock's Lavender Mist. I'm sure I can find a way to utilize a bit from every irrelevant class I have taken. Although, it may not be directly relevant, it gives you perspective and character. Being a competent person does not mean just having a good education and being book smart. It means being worldly and well rounded, with varied interests and an education in a little bit of everything.
DeleteSai, I agree with your comment about GPAs, that students are not numbers and that their worth should not be reduced to such. However, you state that obtaining a college education is equivalent to self-study and that it is easily achieved by visiting the library and cracking open a book, but I beg to differ. There is a difference between taking an AP exam for an AP class you have not taken and going online to study four years (or more) of college-level material and passing that off as credentials in your résumé. College is not just a place where students can learn academically. It provides structure and allows students to interact with professors, other students, and specialists in their chosen fields. It brings them into new social circles and allows them to grow, not just as students, but as young adults.
DeleteSai, you also bring up a good point when you say that employers would much rather hire a college graduate over a high school graduate. It's true: they may both be able to accomplish the same tasks, but a college education trumps all. But what if you were the employer? Would you rather hire someone who is highly-independent and takes shortcuts in order to rise above the rest of his co-workers, or would you hire someone who is motivated, amicable, and willing to learn and share ideas for the benefit of your company?
Adding on to Jennifer’s comment, college is, to an extent, “just a name,” as Sai suggests, but it churns out cultured individuals, which is exactly what society wants and needs.
Ok just as a matter of fact the questions they put in "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" are very trivial. I'm pretty sure I never learned all that crap as a fifth grader.
DeleteAnyways, you are definitely right that some classes don't have any use in life. However those courses, as the article described, are more challenging that the vocational courses. Keep in mind that liberal arts majors have every high earnings, because companies are smart nowadays and they hire the liberal arts majors not because they know the skills of course but because their studies have shown their capacities.
In this article, Louis Menand describes three theories about the purpose of college in society and why people attend college. Theory 1 is that college is a tool that society uses to sort out the intelligent people from the less intelligent people. College is a process that society uses to get the most out of its human resources. Theory 2 is that college students take classes in many subjects, even though they will only pursue a career in one. While Theory 1 suggests that students are machines taking classes in order to achieve high grades and be better than their competitors, Theory 2 suggests that college is actually meant to provide an education to students on various topics, including those that will not help them reach success. Theory 1 and Theory 2 only apply to liberal arts students, and Theory 3 deals with the non-liberal education and suggests that college students are going through specialized training to become skilled in higher technology fields.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree or disagree with any of these theories completely. College should be a place students can receive a high level of education in subjects, even those that they don't need to achieve success, like in Theory 2. However, in reality, most students who attend college do not use it to become more knowledgeable about the world; most students go by Theory 1, and only learn what is necessary to become successful in whatever career path they have chosen. Students care more about the numerical value of their grades than they do about actually learning history and science. While Theory 2 describes an ideal college world, it is only a fantasy that most people do not live in. So, Theory 2 is better, but Theory 1 is how society really works.
I agree with Harry that much of what we learn in grade school is useless, but it does not stop there. Throughout high school and even in many universities, we continue to learn about subjects that will not help a person in his or her career. For example, Columbia attempts to give its engineering students a complete education in the liberal arts as well. I would say that I belong to the school of thought associated with college theory no. 2: in order to achieve the greatest personal reward, one need only learn what is required in one's field.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, this sounds a little primitive, as if we're living in the age of apprenticeships when young boys were sent away from home to learn a craft. But perhaps we're starting to reach a peak of diversified education and we're about to turn back to more specialized education. For example, a computer science-focused high school is opening in NYC soon. It will take students from all skill levels (behind grade level, at, or beyond) in 8th grade. Students stay in the school for six years and graduate with an associate's degree.
Here's some more information on it http://preview.tinyurl.com/7y47dnj (click proceed to site)
In the competitive society that we live in today, in order to be successful as far as finance, a person must specialize in one area where they show a great deal of talent. High school however, is the farthest thing from that. High School is just a game. The majority of students do their work in the specified period of time given, so that they can get a higher grade. They have no rhyme or reason for doing it, and they learn nothing. Every week, I go into school with the mindset of completing all my assignments as fast as possible and successfully cramming all my tests. On paper, that is how to be successful in high school. All high school proves is that certain children may have a better attitude towards uselessness than others, or their parents might beat them harder. Even children who do possess talents in certain subject areas, can get lower grades because of conduct, shyness, likeability and the fact that they missed a homework assignment due to their other 500 hours of homework.
ReplyDeleteIt is a shame that students cannot value what they learn in high school. The things we learn are interesting, and we would be happy to know them forever, however the way our education system is based, it cannot be expected for us to care about what we learn.
I agree with Sai on the GPA matter. It is true that a high GPA just means that the student can retain information long enough to do good on tests, and not necessarily that a student can apply his knowledge in a lucrative manner. "College does not separate the smart student from the dumb, but rather it separates the motivated from the unmotivated." This statement however is not completely true. I think that sometimes there are those who are not unmotivated but have specific ways of learning or a specific pace in which they can learn in. The way the curriculum is taught may not be in their favor, therefore causing them to not perform as well as others.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Christine's first comment. Although college is where everyone discovers their forte and develops their skills in that area to form a career, it is also important for students to keep the classes in other subjects too. Coming out of college with only knowledge of one subject limits the creativity of ideas and the ability to think outside the box that so enhances the results. Being a well-rounded individual provides a greater library of information to use in one's line of work and everyday life. That's why it was required for students in elementary school, middle school and high school to take a range of different subjects. It was not only to expose them to the different fields in preparation for their careers, but also to provide a strong foundation in the other subjects so that the knowledge is there for future reference in any situation.
I disagree with Harry because I think the overused phrase "knowledge is power" can be applied in this instance. No matter how useless some of the information we may learn in school may be, that knowledge will influence how we think and react to the different situations that we encounter in life. Life is random, you never really know what to expect.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of college, college seems to be designed so that students can catch a glimpse into what the real world is actually like. College is a closed environment, simulated to be just like the outside world, but instead of having a job where you get paid, you pay to learn an occupation. College is a time to experience what it is like to interact with other individuals from all walks of life, as one would in the real world.
Furthermore I agree with the idea that people have to experience something to truly understand it. From learning to drive to doing a math problem, teachers can only teach you so much. Personally I think that in order to really learn something you have to experience it, you have to think about it, and you have to understand it, because words only mean so much.
I agree with Karen and Johnny. The reason most students attend college is to gain knowledge and experience the "adult" world. In high school, students are spoon fed, everything. High Schools have a rigorous core curriculum that most people find to be a waste of time. When a high school student thinks of college, they associate it with freedom, whether it is freedom from their parents, or freedom of choice depends on the student. They also think of college as a stepping stone into adulthood. Moreover, (most) colleges have a flexible cirriculum. They let sudens decide which classes they want and in some cases even let them decide what time. This makes education fun and personal. Because of these reasons I like theories 2 and 3.
ReplyDeleteI feel that theory 1 applies more towards high school because according to Mendad theory 1 is where only the grades matter, not what you learn. Although I care about what I learn, a lot of high school students focus solely on their grades. They manipulate their schedules and choose "rigorous" classes to get high grades while learning something they despise and will forget in a few months.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that high school is a way for students to find their purpose and goals in life. For this reason, students are required to take a multitude of classes and subjects. By being exposed to so many fields of study, students are able to find out the ones that they have an aptitude for and that they excel in. However, as Ryan said, the environment that we are exposed to in school does not take into account our passion for the classes that we take. Students who are great in mathematics may view it as being very dull and may actually want to pursue a degree in history. However, because they have better grades in their math classes, they will be pushed by both their teachers and family to apply to a college or program that specializes in mathematics. Students are gradually having their free will taken away and being replaced by the wills of people around them. The movie, "Dead Poets Society," emphasizes this idea, that the decisions that will affect students for the rest pf their lives are being decided by grownups, and not by themselves.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that school helps students specialize in one area, and that this is necessary for them to be successful, school also limits the choices that students can make by presenting those choices to the parents and teachers of the students. Parents advise/force their students to make the choice that will eventually give them a stable and well-paid job. The opinions of the students themselves are overidden.
Erica Kwong Pd. 2
ReplyDeleteLouis Menand describes Theory 1 as follows: “In any group of people, it’s easy to determine who is the fastest or the strongest or even the best-looking. But picking out the most intelligent person is difficult, because intelligence involves many attributes that can’t be captured in a one-time assessment, like an I.Q. test. There is no intellectual equivalent of the hundred-yard dash. An intelligent person is open-minded, an outside-the-box thinker, an effective communicator, is prudent, self-critical, consistent, and so on. These are not qualities readily subject to measurement.”
I agree with Louis Menand because determining speed or strength could be done with numbers. For example, you can measure how much time it takes someone to run 5K or how many pounds of weight someone can lift.
Louis Menand goes on to say: “Society needs a mechanism for sorting out its more intelligent members from its less intelligent ones, just as a track team needs a mechanism (such as a stopwatch) for sorting out the faster athletes from the slower ones. Society wants to identify intelligent people early on so that it can funnel them into careers that maximize their talents. It wants to get the most out of its human resources.”
I also agree that society needs a way to measure intelligence, which is difficult because there are so many aspects to it. However, is college really “a process that is sufficiently multifaceted and fine-grained to do this”? I believe that much of the value we place on college is because society deems it as the above description. Therefore, I agree with Harry on the idea that society shapes the way we think in many ways. Society has made it that going to college, especially a prestigious one, and getting a degree makes someone more qualified for a job in that field. Furthermore, I would like to reference placing so much importance on college, especially as Stuyvesant students. I’m not saying that is a bad thing; it’s just that it’s so much that when I ask my friends “Why are you taking so many APs?”, many times the reply is “Because it’ll look good for COLLEGE.” My question is “Are our actions dictated more by our interests or by impressing the college admissions officers?” Now, although I have taken many APs because I’m genuinely interested in that subject, I have to admit I have been influenced by this idea of “well-roundedness”. However, in a club, I was shocked when a person told me they joined it because he realized he didn’t have any extracurriculars for his COLLEGE applications. Keep in mind that this was a club I was truly passionate about. The same thing goes for volunteering: “Honestly, do we really volunteer because we want to help others or is it because everyone is doing it for COLLEGE?” Time and again, the word COLLEGE keeps popping up. I’m pretty sure that many of us, myself included, are guilty of this. However, I don’t think we can fully blame ourselves for doing so. Perhaps it has something to do with how society’s (basically everyone around us) conception of college affects us all.
I agree with Ryan. Ever since I got into this school, I've always thought that this whole thing that I am doing is just a game. Everything is just a game. The ones with higher grades, better performances in extracurriulars and sports activities will get into prestigious schools like ivy, whereas the others won't. The school is made just to sort out kids who will most likely be leading the society in future- The most intelligent one who not only posesses nerdiness, but also shows great deal of leadership and excellent performancs in club activities. Then, those kids who succesfully passed the rigorous game in highschool will get into top ranked colleges.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I disagree with the opinion that high school gives variety of chances to explore 'things' you really like. It does not really offer variety of classes to students anyway. Almost everyone takes the same classes- math, science, history, english. Besides, (this might only apply to stuy kids) because students are completely overwhelmed with school works, they do not have chances to explore what they want to do. Also, almost all classes are too test oriented. Teachers just teach things that they are suppose to teach, throw couple of tests, and give them grades in the end. And the environment keeps forcing kids to take courses that they are not really interested in, just because they are guranteed to have higher grades and colleges will like those courses. For example, I've seen many kids taking ap compsci or ap statistics, and when I ask them why, they just say because they want more ap, or because colleges like students who have taken ap compsci. Also, My guidance counsellor told me that I would get into a pretty good college if I apply to engineering schools, just because I've been taking high leveled math/science courses, although im not interested in math/science at all. Also, there are so many courses that I have to take regardelss of my personal interests, and these really take away alot of time from me. I wasted so much time doing thoese pointless drafting projects in my sophomore year. I heard that in Europe, high school kids can choose which courses that they want to do and only take the courses they like. If they like math/sceince, their schedule will mostly filled up with math/science classes. Not like stupid art appreciation or drafting classes. This also holds true in South Korea. They can choose between liberal arts or natural science, and their schedule will be organized based on their choices. For example, students who chose natural science will have more classes related to math and science.
And about the question regarding the inherent value of college, I think college is extremely valuable in ones life. In fact, its the actual starting point of one's life in a way. Unlike elementay, jr high, and highschools, college is the place where one can truly explore what they want to do to make a living. You can try different courses (since they are extremely diverse) and study it more in depth in grad school. I think taking courses you don't like in college is a really stupid idea. In high school, that does not really matter because you are just doing it for the sake of getting into top ranked colleges. After you got into college, however, you should seriously consider what you want to do, and try out different courses to really explore. Then, once you've found something you really like, you should study that more in depth in grad school, and finally get a job relating to that field.
To me high school is an episode of Darwin's natural selection. The less "intelligent" are weeded out from the "intelligent" based on what college they will go to. This is society's way of separating people on how "smart" they are to create an elite class of people. However, I agree that intelligence cannot be always measure by grades. Grades do not determine the amount of creativity people possess,their intelligence, and their capabilities in life. So chin up guys. Grades do not entirely determine whether you make it or break it in life.
ReplyDeleteReferring to Will's post above, his scenario about students in South Korea choosing to take liberal arts of sciences also applied to my mom. In China, she chose to take sciences but regretted this decision. She felt that even though she was phenomenal at subjects like physics, chemistry, and biology, she thought she was ignorant of liberal arts subjects like geography and history. She felt that she was "imbalanced" and the lack of learning both types of courses hurt her. In particular, she thought that she wasn't good at writing Chinese and that this inhibited her advance in the scientific field. My mom felt that because she didn't learn about writing Chinese in depth, this barred her from expressing her scientific research and findings both clearly and coherently. So in other words, I agree with Mendand's second theory,; the courses that people take in college, even though they may be obscure, will help in building the person you will be in the future
I remember when I was in elementary school back in China and watched a documentary about the lives of Chinese high school students prepping for the college entrance exam. They do not learn; all they did was practice test after practice test after practice test. The schools forced them to eat and sleep on campus so there were no distraction. I was crying because I saw no point in this destined future of mine and ask my mom, "Why do we do this?" To that she replied, as what Menand would describe as methodological, "There are a billion people in this city. That's the quickest way they can pick kids out." China, where I come from, is way more competitive that America.
ReplyDeleteIn China, even office secretaries have at least masters degrees. This kind of proves the point in the article that the anxiety for higher education degrades its value. However, it is the only way to get one employed. The college acceptance process is even more systematic than America -- the score of the college entrance exam decides all. It is harsh, and there are always a few cases of suicide after the exam, but quoting a famous journalist in China, "it is the only possible way for poor village kids to compete with the offspring of millionaires." The Harvard diploma is probably the only thing a kid from the projects can have in common with the heir of corporation X. It is mechanic, but it is the most objective way I can think of.
As for the matter of liberal arts courses, I also believe it is a way of selection. My favorite chemistry teacher, Dr. O'Malley (he went to U of Maryland too!), once told us that he, like every one of the students, don't believe that we want to spend our lives calculating the pH of solutions. However, the AP course is a way to show colleges that we can take on a challenging course. It all goes back to the methodology.
I don't plan on majoring in liberal arts because as a sane human being, I believe that crap is useless. However, like the article suggested, it is the liberal arts students who actually learn more. My Mom's friend is a analyst for an investment company on Wall Street and he had a PhD in physics. He said that the business and economy majors were often at the lower ranks of the company and the highest paying jobs went to the people who majored in math or science because it is harder to get a degree in those majors. He's only 35 and his annual salary is about 100k after taxes, excluding bonuses and dividends. Higher education obviously worked for him.
I do believe though, every school needs a home ec class, for the basic purpose of survival. What is with all these girls who can't even make ramen? There also should be a class to take care of general ignorance. In a democratic country, ignorance hurts.
I often feel like Americans take the opportunities in this society for granted and are too naive for the ugly side of the world. It is proven in less dreamy parts of the world that the most cynical views of society are usually that most honest ones, but Americans tend to waste time arguing about how we can make a difference and whatnot. Instead of making the system better, people are just making the standards easier which is way American kids are so low-performing on a international scale. Statistically, people should go to school, despite there are always outliers. Somehow Americans have the confidence to believe that they can be the outliers rather than the mean, which is very sad. Therefore, I believe that instead of wasting time arguing whether higher education is necessary or not, we need to pay teachers more and make them cooler like Mr. Ferencz so students would enjoy what they are learning and not ask the dumb questions like "Why are we reading this book?"
Cihang Gu
I agree with Kenneth up there on the idea that our educational institutions are designed to weed out the less intelligent students, which goes back to the first theory that states that college is a four year intelligence test to sort out the best students for future professional schools and employers. However, I also agree that our grades do not accurately measure our intelligence. We go to school and challenge ourselves through these rigorous classes to seem more intelligent but really, we are eventually going to forget a lot of it like what Vinit had said earlier. Once we get through a course, we move on to the next and if it doesn't build on top of the previous course, then we are bound to forget. This cycle will continue and so, we really aren't getting more intelligent at all. I believe that moving on to college wouldn't be much of a difference. The article had noted an assessment that authors Richard Arum and Josipa Roska had carried out, in which freshmen in college were asked to advise an employer about the desirability of purchasing an airplane and were shown many different documents. The freshmen would then write memos which were graded on critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem solving, and writing. This same group of people were given the same assignment 2 years later and 45% of the group had not improved. This showed that people aren't really "learning" in college. So what's the value of education? I believe education does HELP us towards the path to success, but I don't believe education is what makes us more intelligent. Higher degrees of education show more competence in a certain field and with that, it is only right that people with higher degrees in education have a higher income. However, that competence is different from intelligence. Just because you're used to doing something doesn't exactly make you smart. That's my belief.
ReplyDelete