Professors William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson held a discussion about the current academic intentions of universities today. The discussion was entitled "The Academic-Industrial Complex". The debate was held on bloggingheads.com, a website with a collection of split-screen internet debates based on whatever topic at hand. The site marks each video into different parts so that the viewer can jump into any section he or she pleases. Unless you switch the video to full screen, you will find your self easily distracted by the pictures, headlines and advertisements on the side. At many times during the online video a found my self focusing my attention to other interesting articles like, "Mr. Mayhem" and "Alaska 101". I think it would better the viewer, and better the message the site is trying to convey, if the distractions were limited. The Video was split into two halves, displaying each professor. The design of the video box and the basic outline is pretty user friendly and for the most part not harsh to look at.
When the two professor's were discussing, i found it pretty interesting to see there reactions to each others statements. It gave the impression of and actual face two face dialogue between two individuals. At the same time it allows you to view both men at the same time without the usual television editing that tends to just cut back and forth to each person talking.
The section that interested me the most, asked "is there still room for big questions in colleges". What that big question is was still puzzle's me today but the discussion in its self made me think about the intentions of todays college universities.
According Professor William Deresiewicz, the average college student is divided into two categories, "Thinkers" and "Leaders". A leader is a student who inserts himself into the institution and buys into their ideal and beliefs. He plays into the what the university want in a student and works his way up in the institution and ultimately gives back to it what he gains. "Leaders", according to Prof. Deresiewicz, are the believers in life the believe in the system and do not doubt was is going on. Ultimately they play the safe zone and dont ask questions, they just do it.
"Thinkers" are the skeptics. They are the ones who question whats going on in the university. Many of are famous revolutionaries today can be seen as "Thinkers". They do not buy in to what everyone else is doing unless they see it benefitting them self. According to Prof. Deresiewicz "Thinkers" are the true intellectuals.
In this debate universities are described as a business. There goal is to teach student what they believe so when the go off to be successful they can contribute (funds) to the university. There purpose is to manufacture alumni who will give back. These people are the "Leaders". Universities don't aim to make intellectuals anymore because there is no incentive to. If intellectuals do not buy into there message then the chances of them contributing to there society is slim.
One great example used in the story was the religious universities in the past. How we would teach the student about christianity in hopes that they would spread the word. In many ways that is what the universities of today aim to do, just on a more discrete level.
What i feel was a little unfair in the conversation was the word choice used to describe the two students. To be a "leader" and a "thinker" are two positive things. To make one out to be better than the other is wrong. I feel the ideal student should be a mixture of both. We as students chose our institution based on how we felt they could better prepare us for our future, so we of course should buy in to there teaching methods. However as young adult we should alway practice thinking for our selves since we ultimately make are own decision.
I believe every university does not have the intention of molding there students into money donating alumni. I believe the teach them there methods because the honestly believe in it as well. All universities teach there students with the goal in mind that they can go out and better the society.
"ENTER TO LEARN, LEAVE TO SERVE"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hyperlink.
Combine first three sentences into one: condense.
First paragraph needs sentence variety – they are all simple sentences. Also, try to keep all the information in this first paragraph, but cut half of the words. This is taking up way too much space for the amount of ideas you convey.
There/their (in four places). Exchange there for their.
What’s the difference between latter half of first paragraph and second paragraph? Covering the same ideas, apparently.
Next four paragraphs are summary: this is taking too long to get to your ideas about the topic.
Religious universities point could be good, but it’s too underdeveloped. What do you want to say?
Second to last paragraph you finally get to an idea of your own. You need much, much, more of this, and far less summarizing of the bloggingheads position.
“I believe the teach them there methods because the honestly believe in it as well.” Sloppy, sloppy. You have to re-read this and avoid pile-up collisions like this one.
Post a Comment