James M. Hulbert in "What do we produce in the knowledge factory and for whom? A Review Essay of The Knowledge. . ." supports Mark Edmundson's main point in his article, "On the Uses of a Liberal Education." They both view that American colleges have been corrupted by our culture. However James Hulbert goes a step further by blatantly criticizing corporations for creating this consumer-driven society which has now allegedly pervaded the educational realm. On the other hand, Edmundson is willing to admit his fallacies as a professor for succumbing to the consumerism of college and places the blame on several sources, parents and professors included.
Both professors have reached the conclusion that a majority of college students are only seeking to obtain their degrees in order to kick off their careers without earnestly attempting to become an expert in their respective field. Their overall thesis is mostly true. Students are for the most part perversely quiet in the classroom, shy about going to professor's office hours, and they view eccentricity as abhorrent. However, for the sake of arguing against their thesis, Hulbert's adamant anti-corporation feelings revealed in the article could be, potentially to some at least, the precise problem of why students feel it unneccessary to speak up in class, not our consumerist society. If a student does not want to be ridiculed in front of an auditorium sized class, it may just be best to keep his/her mouth shut.
Also, the two authors provide no realistic solution to what they regard as an urgent problem in our colleges today. Closing down fraternities, clubs, and sports teams will not go too well for most people concerned in college affairs and modifying universities so that students will have no choices choosing classing, etc will also not fair well for the customer (student) who is paying the university a more than generous amount of tuition.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Rhetorical Critique
Although Mark Edmundson's article in "On the Uses of a Liberal Education" possesses a meritorious theme and deserves much attention, his argument is not without dispute. For one thing, he seems to ignore the fact the professors today are inexorably opposed to other opinions. This can partly explain why students are often afraid to speak up in class. If a professor is going to rebuke students in front of their peers, then why should they even have the nerve to speak their mind? It's one thing to challenge students and correct them when they are wrong, but there's a threshold, and professor's often cross it too much.
There are a few other points worthy of mention. Edmundson articulates in his article that students are too complacent, not willing to deviate from the norm, and are not pursuing a higher degree of knowledge. But isn't competition to get into colleges today a little more so than, say, forty years ago? Are students not expected to be brighter and smarter than when their parents went to college? Edmundson gets caught up in our consumer driven society and the effects it has played on college students but neglects to mention that education and intelligence in our college community has been unparalleled by any other generation. Where does this fit into the picture and how does it relate with his argument?
My final critique of his article is that he does not propose any solutions to our consumer, complacent college community. He mentions the word "solutions" in the very last page of his incessantly long article, but offers no true solutions, only criticizing our capitalist country, as most college professors have a tendency to do. Then in the second to last paragraph of the article he proposes closing down fraternities and banishing sports and clubs, as if this is a realistic response to what has allegedly become a consumer driven college community.
There are a few other points worthy of mention. Edmundson articulates in his article that students are too complacent, not willing to deviate from the norm, and are not pursuing a higher degree of knowledge. But isn't competition to get into colleges today a little more so than, say, forty years ago? Are students not expected to be brighter and smarter than when their parents went to college? Edmundson gets caught up in our consumer driven society and the effects it has played on college students but neglects to mention that education and intelligence in our college community has been unparalleled by any other generation. Where does this fit into the picture and how does it relate with his argument?
My final critique of his article is that he does not propose any solutions to our consumer, complacent college community. He mentions the word "solutions" in the very last page of his incessantly long article, but offers no true solutions, only criticizing our capitalist country, as most college professors have a tendency to do. Then in the second to last paragraph of the article he proposes closing down fraternities and banishing sports and clubs, as if this is a realistic response to what has allegedly become a consumer driven college community.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Summary of "On the Uses of Liberal Education"
Mark Edmundson in "On the Uses of a Liberal Education," examines college student's lack of intellectual curiosity and relates this to the consumer-driven society we live in. The multiple choices students have today in college have made the university a facile learning environment, resulting in complacent students. For example, he ridicules the fact that students have the ability to withdraw from classes with a month left in the semester and professors are making their classes interesting rather than languid, as he puts it, in order to meet the needs of the students. Pop culture has created a perfect, utopian world vision for students, who are now so concerned with their consummate personalities they lack the courage to challenge conventional thought, afraid of being debunked.
Along the same lines, passion has been nonexistent in the classroom, according to Edmundson. Students have been too focused on conforming to society--a society which dissuades eccentricity and imperfectness. This devoid of passion has led to the end of striving for genius, leading to uneducated and uncurious individuals. However, Edmundson notes that the problem does not just lie with the students but with the professors as well. Good professor evaluations, which are a criteria of whether professors recieve tenure or not, often require students to be "interested" in the class, forcing professors to, again, satisy the students rather than challenge them.
Along the same lines, passion has been nonexistent in the classroom, according to Edmundson. Students have been too focused on conforming to society--a society which dissuades eccentricity and imperfectness. This devoid of passion has led to the end of striving for genius, leading to uneducated and uncurious individuals. However, Edmundson notes that the problem does not just lie with the students but with the professors as well. Good professor evaluations, which are a criteria of whether professors recieve tenure or not, often require students to be "interested" in the class, forcing professors to, again, satisy the students rather than challenge them.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Response on Mark Edmundson's article
In a very persuasive article, Mark Edmundson criticizes college students for their lack of curiosity, courage to challenge professors, and inclination to accede to what he refers negatively as the "reigning generational style." According to Edmundson, college students are becoming increasingly devoid of intellectual curiosity--accepting professors arguments and biasas as universal truths. Further, he highlights what he believes has become a "consumer" college campus, noting the multiple avenues in which students can choose what works best for them--such as droping a class with a month left in the semester if they find it too challenging.
His second argument--"consumer" college campus--is in many ways representative of college today. Students have the means to recieve the professor they desire, a time of class that fits their schedule, and an extensive class selection from their respective major department. His first argument, however, although contains some validity, omits the fact that most professors today have such strong opinions, rightfully resulting in apprehensive students. Radical, closed-minded professors have little patience for students who think differently from them and its corollary is a fearful student who unregretfully does not seek to challenge other students and/or the professor.
His second argument--"consumer" college campus--is in many ways representative of college today. Students have the means to recieve the professor they desire, a time of class that fits their schedule, and an extensive class selection from their respective major department. His first argument, however, although contains some validity, omits the fact that most professors today have such strong opinions, rightfully resulting in apprehensive students. Radical, closed-minded professors have little patience for students who think differently from them and its corollary is a fearful student who unregretfully does not seek to challenge other students and/or the professor.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Description/Reflection Exercise
Positive Effect: As I sit here in the library, observing other students, I realize how special it is to be apart of the JMU community. My fellow students, faculty, and staff all working diligently in an educational environment seeking to better our minds. Everyone is elated to be in the library and enthusiastic about the great learning opportunities we are privileged to have. With the prospect of snow on most people's mind, who are coveting a day off from classes and work, they are hoping for an extra day of respite. Nevertheless they are happy to be college students and willing to put in the work to accomplish something meaningful in their four years in Harrisonburg. And finally, I see groups working together efficiently and productively--learning about the importance in success of group activity.
Negative Effect: Sitting in the library, reluctantly on this Wednesday, I witness the many students and faculty grudgingly working to get through the week. Happy at least it's not Monday, but depressed it's not Friday. Most are dreading the potential of having Saturday classes if the likelihood of snow remains strong. How bad will our weekend be if it is spent in auditoriums listening to mundane lectures? The bland and dull atmosphere is contagious, almost as if everyone detests JMU for no apparent reason. Most people can't wait for spring break, or spring in general.
Self Reflection: This assignment has allowed me to present two different perspectives, or biases, to the reader reflecting the general attitude in Carrier Library. Like an editorial writer in a prolific newspaper, I reveal only one side of the debate, omitting others, and leaving the reader to seek the truth on his own accord or side with my argument. This type of writing is very effective because it is evocative. A reader who completely disagrees with my perspective will have an emotion and a response to my writing; likewise, a reader who agrees will continue to read because he shares the same values and arguments I am proposing. This, in my opinion, is an effective writing style because it does not just merely present the facts, but it rather persuades the reader to believe the author's argument while acknowledging his rationality, or lack of it.
Negative Effect: Sitting in the library, reluctantly on this Wednesday, I witness the many students and faculty grudgingly working to get through the week. Happy at least it's not Monday, but depressed it's not Friday. Most are dreading the potential of having Saturday classes if the likelihood of snow remains strong. How bad will our weekend be if it is spent in auditoriums listening to mundane lectures? The bland and dull atmosphere is contagious, almost as if everyone detests JMU for no apparent reason. Most people can't wait for spring break, or spring in general.
Self Reflection: This assignment has allowed me to present two different perspectives, or biases, to the reader reflecting the general attitude in Carrier Library. Like an editorial writer in a prolific newspaper, I reveal only one side of the debate, omitting others, and leaving the reader to seek the truth on his own accord or side with my argument. This type of writing is very effective because it is evocative. A reader who completely disagrees with my perspective will have an emotion and a response to my writing; likewise, a reader who agrees will continue to read because he shares the same values and arguments I am proposing. This, in my opinion, is an effective writing style because it does not just merely present the facts, but it rather persuades the reader to believe the author's argument while acknowledging his rationality, or lack of it.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Brief Encounter Article
The first ten days
Brief encounter
Jan 29th 2009From The Economist print edition
Barack Obama’s bipartisan honeymoon has ended even sooner than anyone expected
AP
EVERY incoming American president promises that he will reach across the aisle. Senators and congressmen, Republican and Democrat alike, join in the hymn to the virtues of bipartisan effort. This time was no different: everyone applauded when Barack Obama said from the steps of the Capitol that “the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.” But, as usual, the stale political arguments have begun all over again.
Mr Obama set a cracking pace in his first days in office. He signed a lot of admirable orders, such as one closing Guantánamo within a year and others pushing for more fuel-efficient cars and ending the prohibition on sending aid to international organisations that provide abortion. He has buttered up the Republican minority in Congress, and they have gushed about how nice it is to work with him. Nonetheless, the first big partisan row of the new administration has already begun.
It concerns the new president’s plans for the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan”, the largest economic stimulus package ever devised: no less than $819 billion over the next two years in a bid to buoy up the shrinking economy and prevent the loss of millions of jobs. Many Republicans are worried about the hole this will make in the nation’s accounts. They note that plenty of pork has crept into the bill, and that it will be impossible to spend that much that fast. It also contains some protectionist nasties in the shape of “Buy American” provisions. The bill, they say, is just a sneaky way of achieving standard Democratic big-government aims.
A bit rich, the Democrats retort, coming from the party that inherited a healthy surplus from Bill Clinton and turned it, thanks to tax cuts unmatched by savings, into a fair-sized deficit even before the recession began to bite. And besides, what else do the Republicans have to offer as a solution to the mess their president created? (Not very much, is the sad truth.)
Visible party lines
On January 28th the stimulus bill passed in the House of Representatives without a single Republican vote. In principle, that means that it could die in the Senate next week, since the Democrats are currently two votes short of a filibuster-proof majority there. That seems unlikely: the Republicans will not want to be blamed for the recession. But it signals an early end to bipartisanship and bodes ill for the future of more difficult legislation, which will require a lot more co-operation.
Whom to blame for the breakdown? The stimulus row apart, the Republicans can claim to have behaved reasonably well, confirming Mr Obama’s appointments without much fuss, though they did try, unsuccessfully, to vote down his new treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, for failing to pay his taxes on time. Mr Obama, for his part, has offered a lot of fine words about bipartisanship but has not produced very much of it, preferring instead to deliver on cherished Democratic aims. The same holds for the stimulus plan. True, the package contains a large dollop of tax cuts: some $275 billion of the $819 billion comes in this form. But most of that was proposed long ago by Mr Obama on the campaign trail, and so can hardly represent an attempt to forge post-election consensus. The Republicans have been given little say in drafting the plan, and the Democratic majority has taken advantage of the rules of procedure to frustrate their attempts to amend it.
On the other hand, Mr Obama has been careful to drop a few of the least stimulative and most contentious items. And no one doubts that some form of big stimulus is urgently needed. The Republicans could equally be accused of playing a cynical game, voting against a package they know will pass in order to appear thrifty yet not risk being accused of sabotage. In other words: it’s politics as usual.
Brief encounter
Jan 29th 2009From The Economist print edition
Barack Obama’s bipartisan honeymoon has ended even sooner than anyone expected
AP
EVERY incoming American president promises that he will reach across the aisle. Senators and congressmen, Republican and Democrat alike, join in the hymn to the virtues of bipartisan effort. This time was no different: everyone applauded when Barack Obama said from the steps of the Capitol that “the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.” But, as usual, the stale political arguments have begun all over again.
Mr Obama set a cracking pace in his first days in office. He signed a lot of admirable orders, such as one closing Guantánamo within a year and others pushing for more fuel-efficient cars and ending the prohibition on sending aid to international organisations that provide abortion. He has buttered up the Republican minority in Congress, and they have gushed about how nice it is to work with him. Nonetheless, the first big partisan row of the new administration has already begun.
It concerns the new president’s plans for the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan”, the largest economic stimulus package ever devised: no less than $819 billion over the next two years in a bid to buoy up the shrinking economy and prevent the loss of millions of jobs. Many Republicans are worried about the hole this will make in the nation’s accounts. They note that plenty of pork has crept into the bill, and that it will be impossible to spend that much that fast. It also contains some protectionist nasties in the shape of “Buy American” provisions. The bill, they say, is just a sneaky way of achieving standard Democratic big-government aims.
A bit rich, the Democrats retort, coming from the party that inherited a healthy surplus from Bill Clinton and turned it, thanks to tax cuts unmatched by savings, into a fair-sized deficit even before the recession began to bite. And besides, what else do the Republicans have to offer as a solution to the mess their president created? (Not very much, is the sad truth.)
Visible party lines
On January 28th the stimulus bill passed in the House of Representatives without a single Republican vote. In principle, that means that it could die in the Senate next week, since the Democrats are currently two votes short of a filibuster-proof majority there. That seems unlikely: the Republicans will not want to be blamed for the recession. But it signals an early end to bipartisanship and bodes ill for the future of more difficult legislation, which will require a lot more co-operation.
Whom to blame for the breakdown? The stimulus row apart, the Republicans can claim to have behaved reasonably well, confirming Mr Obama’s appointments without much fuss, though they did try, unsuccessfully, to vote down his new treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, for failing to pay his taxes on time. Mr Obama, for his part, has offered a lot of fine words about bipartisanship but has not produced very much of it, preferring instead to deliver on cherished Democratic aims. The same holds for the stimulus plan. True, the package contains a large dollop of tax cuts: some $275 billion of the $819 billion comes in this form. But most of that was proposed long ago by Mr Obama on the campaign trail, and so can hardly represent an attempt to forge post-election consensus. The Republicans have been given little say in drafting the plan, and the Democratic majority has taken advantage of the rules of procedure to frustrate their attempts to amend it.
On the other hand, Mr Obama has been careful to drop a few of the least stimulative and most contentious items. And no one doubts that some form of big stimulus is urgently needed. The Republicans could equally be accused of playing a cynical game, voting against a package they know will pass in order to appear thrifty yet not risk being accused of sabotage. In other words: it’s politics as usual.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Rhetorical Analysis
In a "Brief Encounter," the unidentified author writes to readers of the Economist, admonishing them about talk that is not backed up by action. According to the author, Barrack Obama's first ten days in office have been very partisan and one-sided, contrary to his bipartisan campaign rhetoric when he once remarked, "the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply." The author, however, using a myriad of logos, cites frequent action taken by Barrack Obama underscoring the lack of Republican popularity thus far. For example, in paragraph five, he comments about how the stimulus bill passed the House of Representatives without one Republican vote on January 28th. This article also addresses pathos because the author is rather critical of Obama, whose popularity is through the roof.
Despite his obvious criticism of Obama, he does not omit counterexamples. He cites Republican shortcomings, for example, in paragraph 4, where he castigates them for turning a surplus created by the Democrats into a deficit within a few years. Also, in the last paragraph, where he reiterates his thesis, he comments about how the Republicans will vote against the stimulus package they know will pass--commensurate to the partisan politics of the last twenty years. Therefore House Republicans are acting just as obstinate, however, the only difference is they didn't run a campaign based on a platform of bipartisan consensus.
This is a typical closed essay where the thesis was stated at the beginning, particulars were mentioned in the middle paragraphs, and the thesis was reiterated at the very end. The audience is those who read the Economist, particularly those interested in politics. His purpose was to inform the reader about the reality of what has thus transpired in our country's capital since Barrack Obama was elected as our 44th president. The thesis is that politics has been very partisan since January 20th despite Obama's rhetoric promising the American people otherwise.
Despite his obvious criticism of Obama, he does not omit counterexamples. He cites Republican shortcomings, for example, in paragraph 4, where he castigates them for turning a surplus created by the Democrats into a deficit within a few years. Also, in the last paragraph, where he reiterates his thesis, he comments about how the Republicans will vote against the stimulus package they know will pass--commensurate to the partisan politics of the last twenty years. Therefore House Republicans are acting just as obstinate, however, the only difference is they didn't run a campaign based on a platform of bipartisan consensus.
This is a typical closed essay where the thesis was stated at the beginning, particulars were mentioned in the middle paragraphs, and the thesis was reiterated at the very end. The audience is those who read the Economist, particularly those interested in politics. His purpose was to inform the reader about the reality of what has thus transpired in our country's capital since Barrack Obama was elected as our 44th president. The thesis is that politics has been very partisan since January 20th despite Obama's rhetoric promising the American people otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)