There are two types of people in this world, people who are leaders and people who are thinkers. William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson have a conversation about that on there Blogginheads.tv interview. Both of the men are professors and major universities. The majority of their interview is about how they can improve universities and the fundamentals of those universities. The way the two professors talk is a very relaxed social way. They both have a very friendly at ease sort of tone and its just a simple conversation between the two professors.
About two thirds into the interview they begin discussing the different types of students they have. William Deresiwicz's idea of a leader is someone who sets and example and leads other people. They will eventually have a management position and they see over other people. The university really wants to make these because they bring in more money. If the University makes leaders and those leaders go out and get high paying jobs then they can donate a bunch of their money to the university. William Deresiwicz says "its the job of the university to make alumni". As a student the leader is sometimes seen to be the model student. I personally think that these "leaders" are not exactly leaders they just are people who run with the heard I agree in the idea the an University would like to make more of them because they do bring in a lot more money. You could argue that the university doesn't want to make these people because they want more money they do it it because it will get you a better job and make you more successful in life. However If you look at a college or university you will see that its a bunch of people who want to make money, Its a business and if you are not helping them make money what good are you to them?
A thinker however is different in most cases he is the opposite of the leader. During the speech the two professors say that a thinker is someone who questions society, and questions how things are done and tries to make them better. He constantly wants to rewrite the system to his own liking. They don't "roll" with the crowd and they do things because they want to not because a bunch of people are doing it. These people are usually very intelligent. in fact these people even question their own university. However the university doesn't have a strong interest in "keeping those people around" because they question what they are told they reach out and try to change what is being done and not many people like change. I don't this type of person is bad for the university, they are the ones who promote growth and continue to make sure the university is growing, in fact they are extremely good for the university because they invent new things for the university.
After defining what a thinker and a leader was Deresiwicz and Edmundson go on to talk about how they can help make more thinkers. One way that they can do this is by allowing their students to come in after class during the teachers own hours and help the students out. However that is at the expense of their own future because they are teaching so that they can study something in their field. I know from going and visiting all different universities around where I live that many of the smaller universities make it so that professors have to devote a few hours of their day to let students come in and ask them questions. However most of the tour guides said the teachers just sit there and fiddle their thumbs because students rarely come by. How does this make the University well rounded? You need different types of people to make a university better. You need thinkers and leaders. But providing a place where both of them can grow is essential. The heart of teaching is one on one moments and to make the university well rounded you need that it promotes thinkers
One other thing they talk about is how much of a tragedy that people who are specialized in only one thing is. A lot of people are very smart and they come to work at an university and then they can only really study one specific thing. The model that we use for an university is obsolete and the liberal arts model is a bit better. They also talked about how basically all that the university is doing is selling skills, they are teaching people to do specific things, instead of self knowledge and to learn what skills make them happy on their own. Again when you look at a university you see that it is really just a business and they are selling skills but this does not mean that they are "selling out" they are teaching students and the students pay them to do so. I believe we go to college to get us better jobs so we are in fact investing in skills and I am okay with that.
Overall from the conversation on blogging heads TV that William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson have titled The Academic-Industrial Complex is a enlightening and sophisticated interview where the two talk about the institution as a whole and how they can make it better. They discus the two types of students that come out of the universities, thinkers and leaders. The university needs both leaders and thinkers for it to function and therefor they are both dependent on each other.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
There/their.
Professors at major universities.
If you have two mistakes in the first three sentences, that gives the internet reader little confidence in your ability to form a convincing argument.
Missed periods, “in the idea the an University”. It’s as its. Comma Splices at the end of paragraph two. This is sloppy. You have to write this beforehand and proofread it.
First three paragraphs are organized very logically, but unfortunately they don’t tell me anything beyond what the bloggingheads video does. You need to create new content. You need to get right to argument.
I like the example you give about the office hours, but then you don’t really make a point related to it.
The second to last paragraph attempts to address some questions by giving answers, but does so in a very brief and superficial way.
Post a Comment