Our Wikis

Filmed In Orange

The Impossible Project

Addictions to What?

James Park's first line of his essay "Addictions and Sheep" , “The computer, and subsequently the Internet, has devoured our lives" really grabs the readers attention. The essay itself is evaluating a video on Bloggingheads, which is basically a conversation between two professors. The video, he says, is horrible in audio quality and does not really tell him anything he does not already know. He summarizes the conversation as being about “Computers, Drugs and Modern Student Culture". Mr. Park believes that the two professors from the video cannot truly be able to talk about student culture without being a student themselves. He also explains that he is a computer science major and he has studied some of the topics brought up in the video such as the addictive nature of technology and disagrees with some things that they say.

One of the biggest concerns that James Park has with the conversation is that they two professors do not have an argument. After watching the video I have to agree with Mr. Park, the conversation was unbearably boring. He argues that "if you are going to throw two professors at each other in a head to head video chat conference for a blog, you might as well make it two different people". I really agree with this point I found that they were just stating the obvious for 30 minutes. We both also agree that it would have been just as interesting if either one of them was giving a short lecture.

In order to explain that people are still attached to other things such as their television instead of 100% attached to computers and internet, Mr. Park talks about his childhood and how his childhood has connected him 100% to technology. I believe that because he was cut off from technology at an early age he became more addicted to it later on when it became more readily accessible. "I spent most of my life isolated from other kids my age. The result was that I grew up with a very adult perspective on life, mostly my parents'. I also grew up in a third world country cut off from most modern technology. Combine the two and I'm an old fart in a young whipper snapper's body." He disagrees with the professors argument that people are 100% addicted to technology. I myself agree I know many people who are on this campus and not addicted to technology. For instance my computer science teacher for instance does not have a cell phone and does not check his email. It’s actually pretty annoying.

James Park does, however, agree with some things that the professors say. He agrees that people always want to be entertained, I personally believe this has been true since people have had free time. He also agrees with the statement that people always want to be somewhere else, for instance I want to be asleep right now. He says "they don't want to be in their crappy homes living their crappy lives." However I have to say I disagree, I just went to Blizzcon and while I was there I can't say that I wanted to be anywhere else in the world. In fact while there I met Mike Morheime, yes Mr. Morheime the godfather of Blizzard.

It seems Mr. Park, myself, and the two professors agree that students who overload themselves with classes seem to have trouble with extracurricular activities. I myself took Japanese, which was a bad choice, I am probably going to have to drop that class later this week because its way too much for me to handle and I don't have time for any extracurricular activities. James has simply joined way too many clubs and organization. Also although he says that "Edmundson's call for dissension brought back some fond memories of my History teacher's class" he agrees saying that "They're right, "there is no no to the yes in our culture". We've lost a lot of the independent thought that resulted from rebellion." I think there is still allot of rebellion, for instance look at how people view the war, not many people like it and many talk against it. Many of us do still question society.

However the biggest flaw in this Mr. Park’s essay over the blogingheads video is that he does not really take any sides. His opening paragraph would have you believe that he disagrees with most of what the professors say but he seems to agree with them just as much as he disagrees. I think that in order to get his points across that he does not see eye to eye with the professors he needs to stop being so double sided. Also the title itself also has nothing to do, as far as I could tell, with the entire paper.

The Influencial College Social Life

From bloggingheads.tv the topic of the university industrial complex was discussed by William Deresiewicz of Yale University and Mark Edmundson from the University of Virginia. Both of these professors touched on the subject of what colleges and universities really stand for in this day and age. A classmate, Stephen Sales, gave a response to this discussion highlighting the difference of “leaders and thinkers”, two classifications of people that were discussed by Deresiewicz and Edmundson. Also, based on the title, “Schools need a personal touch” and throughout the essay, he believes that schools need to be more personal in their education to produce the best well rounded student. While some of Sales arguments pertaining to “leaders and thinkers” are well developed arguments, the aspect of a personalized education producing great students is a topic in which I disagree with.

First mentioned by Sales were the qualities of leaders and thinkers. The qualities of leaders, which are people who “insert themselves into the institution… and keep it running” and thinkers, those who “challenge everything and do not go along with the system” should, as voiced by Sales, be put together. I agree that any individual who wants to be successful needs to be able to identify with both leaders and thinkers and create a balance which is beneficial to that individual’s needs and aspirations. I also agree with my colleague in that extremes of leaders and thinkers, or the extreme of anything for that matter, can be detrimental. If an individual can master both characteristics, there is so much more potential for that person to succeed and continue growing.

Also, my peer asked “how colleges promote a mix between the [leaders and thinkers ideals] ”. The solution offered was that the teachers should pay more attention to their students. Based on how much of my day is spent in the classroom, teachers could potentially have little to no effect on how I shape my opinions. And even if I spend more time with a teacher does not mean I will be more inspired or better educated. Of course, I do not mean to say less of a personalized education is unbeneficial to creating a well rounded student, I’m just saying there is much more too it than that.

For example, the college social life is a huge topic that should be looked at, not just the actual academia of the college itself. Has every human only learned what they know from their teacher? There are other factors during college life that shapes students and those factors should be used to the universities advantage. If the university wants to promote a certain ideal, sponsor clubs that promote that ideal, provide benefits and scholarship for student activism. Incentives need to be given inside and outside the institution in order for there to be a place of well educated students.

The cultivation of ideas is key in education. Teachers sometimes only have 50 minutes three times a week to do that. It is hard so shape a student, leader or thinker in that amount of time. The question doesn’t lay inside the universities academics, but the social activities that its students participate in as well.

That being said leads me to next topic of discussion from Sales. When mentioning the big questions which are, what is the good life and what is a good society, Sales said that it “should be” the institution’s responsibility to ask these questions, agreeing with what Deresiewicz and Edmundson had said. As mentioned by Sales, “if people are going to be successful they need to have their own understanding of success and not let society tell them what it is”, because it would result in people becoming “robots and obeying every command”.

While I agree with the concept, I do not think that institutions are the only place for people to discover what they believe and what success is defined as. I actually find it perplexing that in order to become less mainstream and “robotic” teenagers have to participate in the most mainstream event of life by actually going to college, what lots of people robotically do, in order to learn how to become less robotic. It is contradictory of itself. Thinkers and leaders are born and taught to be thinkers and leaders by family members, peers, coaches, elementary teachers, etc. People are influenced by these individuals way before they even reach college. The socialization of: What is the good life and what is the good society are, I believe, achieved before most students enter any type of university.

That being said, the question then should be raised is why do people go to college? Do they really want to be asked these questions or have they been asked these questions and are seeking answers? College and Universities are the institutions that provide people with the ability to think. Getting a degree essentially proves that you can think, analyze and are competent and responsible enough to be given a task and complete it. Sure universities want to make money off of their alumni to help build better facilities and create more programs, but they want a good record in terms of actual education as well.

Having a relationship with a teacher, just one teacher can be one of the most rewarding and life changing experiences for a student. A personalized touch can be extremely important in any education, but asking what is the good life, and what is a good society and learning one on one do not always constitute the person’s ability to discover what is really right. There are so many outside motivating factors influencing a person that education serves only to stand as one form of socialization.

Interrogating The Big Question

In a recent online debate 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". Since this question directly effected the lives of students i felt that it would be best to read some the opinions of my fellow students before making my own.

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. "Thinkers" are the skeptics. They are the ones who question whats going on in the university. 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.

WillPike, a student blogger, said that he doesnt think "thinkers" are bad for universities because they are the ones who promote growth and and make sure the university is growing, however i would have to respectfully disagree. The people who move the economy of the school are the one's who go in the direction the school has in mind. There is no doubt that in life we need thinkers to revolutionize the way we think but unfortunately thinkers can be so stuborn that they refuse to do things they feel would better an institution or government. Like William Dereswicz said, "its the universities job to make alumni". The alumni are the ones who will return to help better the community.

WillPike also talks about todays universities being a business, and agree with him to a certain extent. If universities were a business then they would not waste time hand picking students to attend there school nor hand out scholarships. Instead they would invest there time into advertising so they can obtain more money. Infact there would be no need for an actual campus, since its a business, it can be conducted online.

Shelby Lee Porter posed a strong argument when she said "the problem with the idea of a thinker or leader is that any person can ecompass both of these personaities". I believe that most universities, despite there industrial business appearance, is motivating students to use both of these qualities. It a students choice to give back to the university when he or she become an alumni. He or she learned as a leader but practices that choice as a thinker. 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.

StephenSales, a student blogger, said that if people are going to be successful they gotta have there own understanding of how to do so, which is quite uplifting to think that people should be able to do that but i have to disagree. I f we were to already posses this skills than what is the use of a college. To have this attitude is to exemplify the negative side of a thinker. To believe that you can do something alone is wrong. No should feel that they know how to make it alone because it takes the help of others (universities) to prepare us.

After reading these arguments im am left with the same opinion i had in my last Blog. 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.
Armani (enter to learn, Leave to Serve)

We Can't All Be The Head Honcho

People often miss out on the big questions in life. That's because most of us are mindless drones who do what we're supposed to do and don't challenge the system. According to this video, we are either thinkers or leaders, and only thinkers care about the future of society. That's pretty much why this section is rife with logical fallacies, biased assumptions and pretentious ramblings. Fortunately not all the students fall for it.

When it comes to the issue of "big questions" Mark has a point, that "universities cannot give the answer". They are not there for that anyway. A good university wouldn't give you the answer. They would prepare you to find your own answer. The reason why is that the big question is not universal. It is impossible to tell the answer to all the big questions that everybody has. This is where Mark and I differ in thoughts. He seems to believe that there is one universal big question that is more than just our own focus. Gay marriage, abortion, that sort of thing. I, on the other hand, believe that the big question is relative to the person wondering about it.

A brief section of the video is when Deresiewicz and Edmundson discuss the difference between a leader and a thinker. I know, I'm digressing from the "big questions" but bear with me. This led to a fair amount of discussion in the two posts, despite being so small. Mark took this brief argument and made it the main focus of his post. He discussed how people either do or do not fall into the two predefined categories of "leaders" and "thinkers". Shelby also caught this problem. It is a logical fallacy, the false dichotomy. But I disagree. People can be placed into two groups. But not leaders and thinkers. Rather, leaders and followers. And it's not such a bad thing being a mindless drone, a follower. After all, social movements would have no impact without the followers. Mindless does not mean useless.

But both of them have their valid points. Mark, for example, says that the definition for "leaders" is more befitting for "tools". And it's true. What Deresiewicz defines as a leader isn't exactly the kind of person that people follow. Think of some examples: Martin Luther King Jr., Julius Caesar, Genghis Kahn, Ghandi, Jesus. These people weren't followed because they obeyed the system. They were followed because they challenged the system. Shelby brought up another good point. "Any person can encompasses[sic] both of these 'personalities'". Considering the definitions were either someone who assimilates into a system, or someone who is cynical, both are entirely possible. A person can be brought into a company, and slowly works up the corporate ladder, not just because of good performance, but because of innovative ideas that improve output and profit.

Really, who thinks about social injustice every day of their life? "What is the good life?" was an example of a big question given in the video. That is exactly the kind of question we ask ourselves every day. When we get up in the morning and look at ourselves in the mirror, do we really think "Do homosexuals deserve to be legally married?" or "Does freerice.com really help prevent world hunger?" No, we study our hair and try to brush it to get it that sexy look to attract somebody we like. But Mark wrote something that makes me realize why most of us think that: "Often times it is the 'Thinkers' who ask the 'Big Question'." We are not all thinkers/leaders. Those who question societal norm are true leaders. And like Shelby says, people who are true leaders share qualities of both. The people who get up in the morning and ask themselves "How can I help my people fight oppression?" Those are the Martin Luther King Jr.'s. The people who get up every morning and ask themselves "What military innovation can I use to rule the world with an iron fist?" Those are the Caesar's.

But it's not college where you learn that. Both of them get the wrong idea about college. Shelby talks about how colleges need to provide a "well rounded institution". That's all well and good, but if somebody is naturally a follower, they won't have any innovative ideas. They'll just spew the same material given to them. No matter how much you might train someone to lead, if they're not good at it, they won't succeed. Sarah Palin is the ultimate current example. Mark also uses the same point, that "being a well rounded individual is a key to success". Some of the greatest leaders in the world never made it to higher education: military generals, social revolutionaries, rich people. Here's another real world example: Bill Gates flunked out of Harvard. The key to success isn't your education, it's who you are. Bill Gates became a multi-billionaire because he had the balls to lie to a man about his purpose with DOS.

But that's the way it is. You can't make a leader. They are born. And they are rare. There aren't leaders and thinkers. There are many kinds of people, all with roles to play. All with a purpose in life. That purpose may be small, but it affects others, and in turn those others affect more, and in the end influence will always stretch far. But there will always be the rare person who comes along. That person will challenge conventional thought. They will be the ones who ask "the big questions". And it won't be because someone taught him to. Sure, it might help him to formulate arguments or reach more people, but in the end it will truly be because he was born that way.

Universities Should Be More Than Academia

Students expect their colligate years to be life changing. William Deresiewics of Yale University and Mark Edmundson from the University of Virginia have come together to challenge the view of college institutions. In their segment “Is there still room for the big question in college?” on bloggingheads.tv, colleges’ true motivation is called to question. Colleges are supposed to be institutions that shape young adults, so they will have a successful future. Deresiewics has a different view and says, “The purpose of Yale is to produce Yale alumni”. He says that colleges are turning away from the humanities and focusing on producing alumni that can produce high level incomes as to donate to the school. Both these professors think that college institutions need to incorporate more.

Shelby Lee Porter did not agree with Deresiewics, and Edmundson views and believes that these big questions should not be asked in college. Porter believes that people have to experience things and not discuss them. Porter does not take into account that everyone has different experiences and discussion can be a great way of learning about these experiences to better one’s self. She also believes that schools that have money as its main motivation are effective and give students all what they need to be successful. While money is always going to be a factor or even much needed asset, it is not what colleges should have as their top priority because the students they teach will have more in their life than just a career.

It is true that life experiences can teach people how to answer these questions, but why can’t colleges be involved? Porter states in her response to the blogging heads video, “Every person finds their own happy medium in life that they consider “good” by simply living their life. Every person finds their own happy medium in life that they consider “good” by simply living their life”. Not everyone in life is happy. Many people live difficult challenging lives and happiness is much harder to find for those people. Not all students have strong foundations and great upbringings. Why not have professors teach these young adults what in life has made them happy and how they experienced their life to its fullest. Even if the professor did not have the greatest life experience it would still get students to think to themselves what do I want after college. Colleges are here to help shape the men and women of the future. They have a great influence on young adults moralities and life expectations.

People who go to universities come from different places and have had different experiences. The college environment is a perfect place for its students to learn moral values from their own peers and professors. College is a new experience that the youth of our world does not know yet. In Porter’s own response she wrote “College is the place to discover who you are, to accept and reject certain believes, and know why”. In order to do all of these things people must be willing to ask the big questions and talk about them. Many students are overloaded with their work load doing whatever they can trying to get into the best the best graduate school in order to try and make the most money and will never take the time to ask these big questions themselves. According to Porter this is not a problem.

Porter says schools are still functional because they are educating the student to a certain degree. Professor Deresiewics and Professor Edmundson where arguing that schools do not educate students at all but that universities do not talk about life issues. The two professors are arguing that schools are not playing a role in molding students’ morals and helping them discover what is important to them. Students need to have a more personal relationship with their professors and should be able to go to them for advice not just about the class but life in general. The schools education needs to be more than just what is in a text book and how to do a job correctly. Teachers are not just living text books, they have experiences and knowledge to share outside of their career.

Porter wrote “The main goal of a university should involve producing a well rounded education, that in turn would produce well rounded alumni”. In order to have a well rounded education then colleges need to touch on social issues as well and have humanity
classes. Porter contradicts herself by saying that financial motivation works but that schools should focus on being well rounded. If schools have money in mind they are not going to worry about teaching their students important life lessons. The only thing money motivates colleges to teach is that your career is what is most important. Happiness is not factored into the equation. There must be more to a person’s life than their job for them to be well rounded.

Colleges undoubtedly should be trying to produce financially successful students, but that should not be the main goal on their mind. Colleges should be creating an environment where students have original thought and are not just programmed. Students need to be thinking of ways to better our world and know how to solve whatever problem they face throughout their life. A career is not everything in a person’s life and real happiness cannot be one dimensional. Surly students want to be financially successful when they are older, but how will they know how to use that success to help society?

Personal relationships with instructors will help students discover what has made other people happy and allow them to form their own definition for themselves. Universities are more than just a career building experience. It is the transitional process of turning youth into adults, not turning youth into workers. Students will react to their environment so colleges need to provide the best environment possible for growth not only academically but also as an individual.

Answers come as we grow

In class we have been discussing the blogging heads video that was made by two professors,William Deresiewicz a former teacher at Yale university and Mark Edmundson. These two professors discuss various subjects but the one that caught my interest was the one about there still being room for the big questions in college. These gentle men's arguments are over generalized and one sided. One can argue against or for them, I choose to disagree with them and with my classmates who do agree with what they are saying.

When discussing on the topic of education and how some institutions do not properly educate their students, or prepare them for the real world. Shelby Porter comments on this and makes a point in the third paragraph about how '' College is the place to discover who you are, to accept and reject certain beliefs, and know why.'' I disagree with this because a person does not need to be in college to discover themselves. It is not something that you discover over the course of 4 years, you discover yourself everyday that you are living because more often than not these things will change depending on when and where you are. The environment people live in has a greater influence than anyone thinks it does, on people's decisions, beliefs and behavior. Take an example of a child that comes from a conservative,rich and high class family, this child's idea about going to college is not about finding the answers it is about doing what they are supposed to be doing (at least this is they make most people think). Some of them already have the “big questions” answered for them. The point here is that not all students go to college seeking the same things. College only gives you an idea of the real world, away from the comfort zone but it is not the place where you will make all the conclusion's , it is where you begin asking yourself these questions.

I believe that teachers are there to guide you and help you with your education. Many people tend to confuse the teachers responsibilities, they are there to help you get a better understanding of complicated concepts. They are not there to give you the answers to questions they sometimes have no answer to. What people don’t understand is that a teacher learned from someone too but they are still searching for the same answers everyone else is. This is why I agree with Stephen Sales when he says that ‘’If people talk and write about these questions it will cause discussion and force people to think about these questions’’. This is true in most cases but in some people learn by experiencing and finding out what is good for them. People expect too much from the universities. A university is like any other business, like a hotel they will treat you well because you are their guest but what happens to you after you leave is for you to find out. But they always treat the richer guests better because they know they will come back and stay in the more expensive rooms and the hotel will have had good business.

In Armani Cooper’s essay he mentions from the beginning that you must enter to learn and learn to serve. But what is this supposed to mean? This brings to mind the question about why people go to college. Are they there to learn or are they there to serve? It is different for every one that is why they classify people into leaders and thinkers. I believe that the description of leaders is completely invalid, a leader in college is someone who is there to serve and learn and a thinker is a person that is there to learn. When a thinker is learning they question that is their way of learning. However there is not set distinction between the two because most people are a mixture of the two.

Most people think of ‘’thinkers’’ as ruthless, very outspoken people who cannot be controlled. This assumption is what gives false ideas to people like the two professors in the blogging heads video; they have made their arguments based on stereotypes that most people use. We also have to keep in mind that these institutions that people are so often trying to fight fault in are being run with both thinkers and leaders, there is not extreme of one or the other. Thinkers in these institutions are not a weakness they are bright and intelligent addition, because they both complement each other.

Where there is a will there is a way; if people search for the answers they will find them but if they only search in one place it is likely they might not find the answers. As I read some of what my colleagues have written some mention the fact about the size of the institutions. I think that has nothing to do with finding the answer to the big question or determining certain things about you. It might be harder to find a teacher or some to guide you through finding your way but the point is the teacher/professor does not have the answers for you so his being there or not, will not destroy any thing. It is like when a baby is learning how to walk no one tells him/her ‘’walk like this’’ the hold their hand and the baby finds his or her way. At first it is difficult but it gets easier as you move along, you learn step by step.

A Response to Shelby Lee Porter's Response

In reading Shelby’s essay which has an opinion that for the most part is in contrast to my own. I learned a few things about how colleges would teach the big questions that could be perceived as bad things in the wrong light. With the wrong tint to them, these things could seem unnecessary or downright detrimental to the students, but as I see it these things are either helpful or absolutely necessary to the betterment of student education.
One point that Shelby made was that student’s don’t need to be taught the “big questions” because they have already learned most of the answers in everyday life. This is not true in all honesty there are an unlimited number of questions that can be important to each individual’s life. Shelby, do you know what you would do if the American economy collapsed? Do you know what will make you happy in life? If you do, great, but there are many questions that you will come upon in life that you have not yet probed and colleges could help you to do that.
Many students will teach themselves the answers to many questions on their own and that is something that will always be true but what a college can and should do is show their students the questions that many people come across in their lives. Some student’s may already know the answers to the questions that a school would ask and that is inevitable but they still have other inquiries that can plague their minds.
That brings a possible solution to this problem. Why not have a list of the questions, a student can and should run across in their lives, and if a student believes that they do not need to explore a question any further they can move on to another one. Some students will skip entire questions but then they would be able to answer more relevant ones to themselves. The teachers could then either help the students individually or group them by question so that they can discuss among themselves and with a teacher. This solution does rely on the student’s willingness to learn, but isn’t that something that colleges should also teach, the ability for the student to learn by their own free will?
Another point that Shelby makes is that colleges cannot give their students answers to the questions, the answers must be achieved. This is a point that is absolutely correct; colleges must not just tell the student what the answer to the question is that is something that no one can answer but themselves. But is it not possible to achieve these answers in college? Teachers in the ideal system would never just give the student’s an answer they would help them in finding their own answers. In a sense teachers would not give the answers they would, not to sound like Peter Frampton, they would show you the way. Every day. Students do not have multiple paths to each question, as Shelby stated. There are infinite paths for each student, which is why the teaching of these questions would be such a hard thing to do, because the rate at which each individual question would be taught would be different for everyone and most often require individual help.
A problem with colleges right now that is not inherently their fault is that the big theme right now is to make more money. This creates the cycle of the college trying to attract the students by showing them how to make more money. The most effective way to show a student this is to focus on it so that is what schools have been doing recently. This is the cycle I described in my previous essay.
Colleges though for the most part seem to be lessening the focus on making money. They seem to be going back to the more undefined things in life. Such as these questions that can help us all when answered. I believe the “Big Questions” to be a symbol for everything a college can teach its students that they would not learn on their own. That is what colleges should do; teach their student’s everything they do not know that will help provide for the betterment of their lives.

Our Missing Education

A recent segment of a Bloggingheads.tv video, titled “ Are there still room for big questions in college?” involving William Deresiewicz, of Yale University, and Mark Edmundson, of the University of Virginia, discussed some of the issues within modern day universities.

The two men discuss how universities contain two types of students, leaders and thinkers. They come to the consensus that a leader is one who follows the system and openly accepts the ideas being fed to them by the institution. These are the students who become the alumni that give back donations to the university in order to keep it going. Thinkers, are the students who question everything, they refuse to acknowledge their universities ideas. While, it’s true that universities contain both leaders and thinkers, as mentioned by the Bloggingheads.tv video and nlopez’s article “what is worth teaching?”, both Bloggingheads and nlopez fail to accept that not every student is a leader or a thinker. There are those who are somewhere in between and these students also need to be accounted for in the discussion of leaders and thinkers.

Beline U’s article “ a leader is a thinker” takes a different approach to the whole idea of leaders and thinkers. She mentions that a leader IS a thinker. I found this quite interesting because the way leaders and thinkers were discussed in the video, the two sounded like polar opposites. How can two things on opposite sides of a spectrum be the same thing? Beline U says “the reason why leaders can never say or show what they are thinking is because it would cause chaos and there would be no leadership to stop it.” In this statement alone Beline U is contradicting her whole entire idea of leaders being thinkers. If a leader says what they are thinking then there really not much of a leader anymore, are they? A leader doesn’t need to think, they have the road already paved for them, and they just have to follow it. Again, Beline U makes a creative point which may in different cases be true, but not in the university spectrum.

Deresiewicz and Edmundson later move on to discuss the idea of students who go to elite universities not getting the personal support that they need in order to succeed in their studies. They suggest that teachers take time out of their busy schedules to have one on one time with their students. StephenSales article, “ schools need a personal touch” takes an effective rout towards solving this issue. StephenSales mentions how of course it’s difficult to make personal time for students at elite colleges for the professors have their own personal careers to worry about and time for students is just not possible in their busy schedules. The idea to talk about having this “one on one” time and writing about it is not enough. Action needs to be taken to help improve the ways in which students can have one on one time with their teachers. If a professor at an elite college cant make time some sort of personal time for their students, than maybe they shouldn’t be teaching at that school and rather take some time off to finish whatever project they are working on and return back when they feel they can make the essential time needed to personally educate their students.

A point made by WillPike in his article “I think I’m a leader (now with 99% more sense)” was that it’s a tragedy to have people specialize in one field. I think its tragedy for people who don’t specialize in one field. For example, if people spent their time becoming moderately talented in several fields, rather than focusing their time on becoming an excellent professional in one field, we would not have jobs or careers in the world today. This doctor kind of knows how to diagnosis his patients, but the part in med-school where they teach about diagnosis the doctor didn’t complete because he had left and decided to take up some graphic design classes. Being educated in several different fields isn’t a bad thing, it’s just that ultimately one field must rise above the rest and must be ones ultimate focus and specialty.

Ultimately, the problems presented by the Bloggingheads.tv segment about the issues with colleges today are quite valid, but fixing these issues would only open doors to other issues and so on and so forth. There is always going to be a “circular chain” of issues inside universities. We have to ultimately ask ourselves this, what is most important to improving our future? To answer this question there will be give and take involved between the universities and there students, but this is the best method to limit the problems that universities and students encounter with each other.

What Academic Institutions REALLY Strive to Produce

Beline U. wrote A Leader is a Thinker in response to an interview on bloggingheads.tv between Mark Edmundson of UVA and William Deresiewicz of Yale University. Beline argues that the professors make hasty generalizations. But, generalizations are inevitable when talking about a large group of people. She  argues that we need both leaders and thinkers to have a successfully functioning society when in fact society would ultimately benefit from a fusion of leaders and thinkers rather than both. Thinkers are skeptics of everything who need convincing to do something, whereas leaders blindly commit tasks. They seem to keep things going in a robotic manner and question nothing. Beline also stated that colleges bring in these skeptical thinkers with the goal of producing these blindly obedient leaders.

Beline argues that Edmundson and Deresiewicz just give their own personal opinion and that "one cannot assume that everyone thinks like these men." These men are well educated and can generalize the academic institution very well. They have been on both sides as students, then teachers. And yes, they give their opinions; And although not everyone falls into the educated generalizations they provide about how students think and how institutions act, their opinions are still very accurate.

I agree with Beline when she states that institutions need a balance of leaders and thinkers, as there are advantages and disadvantages to both. But what they really need in order to achieve this balance is not leaders and thinkers separately, but rather a fusion of the two. They are too extreme to function in the real world properly. The balance they need will be achieved when each individual is not labeled a leader or a thinker but has characteristics of both categories. Successful real world leaders such as politicians like Obama and inspirations like Martin Luther King Jr. and JFK all have or had qualities of thinkers and leaders. These qualities ensure success.

Beline argues that "if universities did not want thinkers in their institutions then why are they continuing to admit thinkers?" and later states that "universities are more interested in creating leaders. This implies that Universities admit thinkers with the goal of changing them into leaders. But if you look at any college application, admissions are always looking for what you were involved in throughout your high school years. What clubs and sports did you keep going and contribute to in order to better the community. Clearly colleges are looking to admit leaders who will get involved, but they believe are capable of thinking. Leader qualities are a must for college admittance. Institutions want their leader-esque freshman to learn to think and ultimately graduate with leader and thinker qualities. These are the people who will keep producing successful alumni to benefit the schools in future years. I agree that the ultimate goal of schools like Yale is to produce Yale alumni, but the caliber alumni they want to produce are leader/thinkers.

Beline argues that:

"institutions are not helping people understand the questions because most of the people in these places have not found the answers to these questions"

Yes, professors don't have the answers to these big questions but its clearly because there ARE NOT steadfast answers to these big questions like what is the good life. The good life varies from person to person. Academic institutions fully understand this and want their students and alumni to find out what works best for them in their lives. We spend our entire lives hoping to answer these unanswerable questions, but the least we can do is keep them in the back of our minds as we go through life and try our best to satisfy the inevitable insatiability brought upon by these questions. The good life is deemed unreachable by the nature of human beings. The goal of academic institutions is to create alumni who understand these big questions inside and out and have an optimistic, yet realistic view of attaining the answers for themselves.

A leader is not a thinker after all, but leader/thinkers are the ones who will prosper in the future. They are what academic institutions are really looking to mold out of those capable leader-types they choose to admit. They will keep the cycle of alumni going that every academic institution needs to survive.

The Universities Role

The university – a mecca of knowledge and “true teaching” or an “academic-industrial complex”? Shelby Lee Porter’s article "Well Rounded Institutions, The Mind and Careers” addresses William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson’s bloggingheads.com video "The Academic Industrial Complex”. While I agree with Shelby that universities should be well-rounded and do need to focus on making money - I don’t think they should do those things for the reasons she mentioned. Our thoughts divert on the universities role in asking the big questions such as, “what is the good life and what is good society” - that the universities place is to enable students to think critically, and that people do not necessarily ask the big questions just by living.

Porter says, “I personally do not believe that these big questions should be asked in college anyway. While it may not be the case for many, through my experience, these “big” questions have been asked and somewhat addressed way before I even started college.” Porter is right; some students do address these questions before they reach college. Those who look at their guardians or teachers and decide if theirs is a good life or not, or those who were raised in unfortunate circumstances who realize what would be their good life and are inspired to create it. Also, as William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson point out, those who go to church are asked these questions and left to ponder them.

But, this is not the case for everyone. There are students who do not go to church, students who are not self-reflective – students who have rarely thought about the big questions. Students do not usually ponder upon how they can contribute to make a “good society” or manage to “learn through living”. For example, think of students who drink and drive. They are not thinking about how they are damaging society, they are only thinking of themselves. Today’s society is success driven and therefore more individualistic and selfish – another point Deresiewicz and Edmundson make. Honestly, how many students wake up in the morning and think, “What is the good life? What is the good society?”

Another point Porter makes, “College is the place to discover who you are, to accept and reject certain believes, and know why.” She suggests colleges do this by being well-rounded. While I agree that colleges should be well-rounded by providing many different areas of study and professors who excel in their fields, I also think asking the big questions contribute to a college being well-rounded.

Part of learning who are you and what you believe comes from knowing how you want to live your life, how you want to contribute to society, if you even want to contribute, or what is right and wrong with the current state of affairs. When one realizes how they want to create their “good life”, it will help them figure out if they want to pursue a career, enter a convent, or join the Peace Corps, etc. By bringing up the big questions universities help their students understand how their choices affect society.

“A college or university should provide students help in finding the answers that they are looking for and give them the tools and knowledge to use their education however they want to use it” writes Porter. But a universities purpose is not just to enable a student to do whatever they want – they should teach students how to think. Deresiewicz and Edmundson coined the terms “leaders” and “thinkers” – students who buy into the institution and contribute to its survival, and intellectuals - students who question themselves and the system. Porter’s idea, “There are more benefits to rich, successful, popular, and educated alumni, than well, college drop outs”, explains why universities have no interest in asking the big questions, or in creating “thinkers”.

While alumni who go out and make lots of money are excellent for the university, college drop outs appear a bit more useful to society. While of course money will be on the university’s mind, much as it is on yours and mine, money should be viewed as a way to better the institution so as to better serve its students – and society as a whole. I agree with Porter that, “…any person can encompasses both of these “personalities”. Both the thinking aspect as well as the leader aspect should be encouraged when learning.” By cultivating both of these traits in each student the university can still provide for itself while better serving its students in cultivating their minds.

I challenge universities to be less self-centered and more dedicated to teaching its students how to think – professors to find ways to incorporate the big questions in their teachings – students to wage with themselves and the ideas they are presented with.

Getting Ideas on Paper

Writing is a very tricky form of expression, but it’s not. People over think writing, when it is simply getting one’s thoughts and ideas down on paper, or in this case on the internet. The problem is that authors try to sound intelligent by using sophisticated vocabulary terms. In reality, it is better to write clearly than to write with fancy words. Although it’s never a bad idea to use big terms if the author is comfortable with them and knows how to use them. It is when an author is not familiar with a term and uses it incorrectly that problems and confusion occur. When a piece of writing is written clearly and written in the correct voice, the piece of writing will have a strong statement.

A problem with some blogs is the voice in which they are written. Some blogs can be written informally, while others should be written formal. The blogging heads video “Is there still room for the Big Question in College” was too informal. There was no structure to the debate, which is similar to having no thesis. The presidential debates are for more organized because of the use of a third party mediator. This mediator creates a more clear and organized argument because one knows what the two people are debating about. The two people in the blogging heads video do not clearly state what they argue about. These informalities create a sense of false authority, almost as if the blog “lacks competence in the field under consideration”.

Formality is an important issue when writing in blogs; depending on the audience, one might write in a more casual tone. Concerning the “Big Question”, one should be more formal when discussing the topic of education because formal writing has a connection with education. When the tone is informal in brings a logical fallacy of false authority. For example, in the blog Two old farts talk out of their asses, the author writes “I'm starting to grow tired of listening to the self righteous ramblings of two pretentious professors. As a student, I don't like being talked about as a study subject. I'm a person. This is the problem with academia”. This is very informal and because of that, the point loses its credibility. It does not lose credibility just because it is informal because the sentence itself does not flow smoothly. The statement will not stick to the reader if sentences are too in cohesive. Also the vocabulary is technical and does not fit in the sentence. The idea is a good one, but the way it is phrased is not clear.

People need to become more clear and formal when they speak and create titles. When bloggers are not clear, holes develop in the argument. For example, titles that do not give a description, such as “Addictions and Sheep” do not serve their purpose. Although very creative, it would serve well as a novel title than a blog title. It sounds very interesting but lacks the information needed for the reader to know what the blog is about.

Clarity in writing leads to success. If the author makes a clear sentence, it is easier for the reader to understand. This gives the authors advantages over other
authors for several reasons. They can read the blog quicker without having to reread sentences; the readers understand the point of the blog and do not have to reread it. For example, in the blog Schools Need a Personal Touch, the author explains his opinion very clearly:

“One of Chapman’s key attributes is its size. Smaller schools will always have a more personal relationship between student and teacher. My classes are small enough to where people notice if you are missing class. I am able to visit any of my teachers during their office our five days a week and can email them any problem I might be having.”

With clarity such as that, the reader understands the point as the author transitions from one point to the next. The vocabulary is very simple which makes it easier to understand and thus create more of an impact on the reader.

Writers go through many phases in school and their careers. They switch writing styles and can write in multiple styles. Each topic may require a different voice, which is why it is important to be versatile in writing. When it comes to the topic of education, writing formally is always a good option. Being very clear and concise in ones writing is the easiest way to make a point. People learn rules of writing such as what to write and what not to write. One should not be bound to rules when expressing their opinion; as long as their statement is clearly written, there is no need for rules.

Logical Fallacy Videos

Fallacy One.
Fallacy Two.
Fallacy Three. (8:09 - 8:24)
Fallacy Four. (3:00)
Fallacy Five.
Fallacy Six.
Fallacy Seven.
Fallacy Eight.
Fallacy Nine.
Just for Kicks and Giggles.

What is Worth Teaching?

Professor Deresiewicz and Professor Edmundson discuss what professors are teaching kids today in college. They believe that colleges are just going for the main stream approach to teaching. Both professors think this is a negative aspect because then most students aren’t taught to question the system and think for themselves.

Professor Deresiewicz and Professor Edmundson believe that the students in colleges for the most part can be divided into two categories; thinkers and leaders. The leaders are the students the colleges seek to breed, the students who will get out of colleg and make lots of money so that the alumni can send it back to their colleges. The thinkers are the students that question what the colleges are teaching and whether it is worthwhile. Even though it is not actually black and white like that, most students will always question the establishment to a certain degree. Some will even drop out of their college because they do not find any answers to their big questions there.

I agree with many of the criticisms made by professor Deresiewicz and Professor Edmundson about modern colleges. Students should not just be taught how to follow a certain career path in order to make the most amount of money. They should be taught how to follow less traveled and less safe paths or perhaps make their own paths in their careers as well. Students may even possibly become more successful if they can think for themselves and even more so if they have considered the big questions in life.

But what are the big questions? How do I spend my life meaningfully, might be one. This question when answered could lead a person to do many various things. They could still follow the same career path as everyone else but start a family and create meaning in their life in that way. Or they could ditch their formal education and join the Peace Corps in order to help less fortunate people and bring meaning to their life in that way. Better yet they might be able to figure out how to use their formal education to help even more people in more useful ways. That is a way that learning about the big questions can help you out in life.

Professor Deresiewics brings up how in the 19th century colleges were religious institutions. They were not just businesses trying to make money and look more prestigious like they are now. When they had masses for the students, they could actually get the students to think about all of the hard questions presented to them in life. This was not only true because the institutions were religious, the reason colleges asked those questions back then and not now is because back when colleges were first created it was not all about the money. Colleges back then just strove to give their students a higher education than they could achieve by themselves.

Colleges today care more about image than anything when they look at what they will teach their students. The main goal is to be one of the best colleges at teaching kids how to make lots of money so they can charge lots of money for the education they provide. They more money they make the “better” education they can provide. It is to some extent a vicious cycle that looks like it will not find a solution anytime soon.

The corruption by money is the main reason that the colleges do not normally ask the big questions to their students anymore. If you ask your students whether their education is worthwhile they might just find out that it isn’t for them and drop out to do something that is to them more worthwhile. If they ask their students if they think it is meaningful to go out and follow the same career paths millions have before them to make more money, they might not think so and go out and make less money.

Those are things that colleges have become afraid of and because of their fear they have taken away the much higher education that they used to teach to the students. Students used to leave colleges and feel prepared for their lives. Now they leave and feel prepared to work. This is something colleges need to strive to fix for their students. They have to trust that student’s will still want to pay for an education that will not just teach them how to make money but also help them to learn how to live.

Outside the Box

The Big Question is not on an exam. During an Interview, William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson have a conversation about universities. They blog and post video chats on blogheads.tv. In The Academic-industrial complex they discuss: “Is there still room for big questions in college” In the video chat these to take turns debating their opinions on the matter. They speak formally and prove their point over a video on their blog. They ask if there is still room for the big question in college”, but what is the “Big Question”?

William gives Universities bad image in the opening part of the video. For example he states that universities are businesses and the “purpose of Yale College is to raise Yale alumni”. By raising alumni they mean raising wealthy people who can donate back to the university. This has its pros and cons. For example, it can make an individual well prepared for the field they are attempting to work. The students will know how to handle themselves in any given situation. The con is that they lack the skill or knowledge to act in situations outside their profession. Being a well rounded individual is a key to success.

William uses the term “leaders” differently than a normal person would use it in everyday conversation. For instance, he explains them as people who “insert themselves in hierarchy… and rise to the top and keep the system going”. This sounds like an outstanding person in society, the one who is the best and keeps the system on track. In reality, these people may lead the system or business, but they are just followers who keep the system going. They are just tools for the university to craft and use however they like.

William classifies other people as “Thinkers”. Thinkers are people who are skeptical, ask questions, and stand outside the institution. These are the people who make break the norm, the people who make changes in society, and the people who should be called “Leaders”. Thinkers change society because they see things differently from outside society. They observe and make changes accordingly for the benefit of society. These thinkers are able to change society because they think about the “big questions”. They speak their opinion and stand up for what is right; protesters, lobbyists, and interest groups are examples of “thinkers”.

What William calls “Leaders” should be renamed followers. Leaders are people who people look up to and follow without fear. Leaders are someone who people can always rely on. The way William describes “leaders”, he portrays them as people who are puppets and follow a never ending cycle. A more correct term would be tools. They only do what they were taught in college; and what they learned in college was how to be a profit to the university.

Thinkers are different from everyone else. They observe what occurs around them. They look for answers to the “Big Question”. Even if the university never proposes the question, they search for answers to the problems of society. Even more important: they ask questions of the university.

Universities cannot give the answer to the “big question”; they can only lead one in the right direction. It is the job of the “Thinker” to think outside the box and create a solution for the problem. The reason students go to college because “students want a good education”. Students want a good education so they can be successful. This makes a symbiotic relationship between Leaders and social systems, and a parasitic relationship between Thinkers and the system. Leaders do as the system tells them to, while Thinkers try to answer the “Big Question”
But what really is the “Big Question”? In the past the question involved God. For example, in the in 1925, the “Big Question” was evolution as exemplified through the Scopes Evolution Trial. In 1865, the “Big Question” was the abolition of slavery. But what is the question now? Is it gay marriage, Abortion, war in Iraq? William in Mark discusses the “Big Question”, but do not specify what it is. They talk about how “Thinkers” are the ones to solve these questions, but they can’t answer was has not been asked.

Often times it is the “Thinkers” who ask the “Big Question”. They do not conform to society; instead they ask questions and develop plans to improve it. These people are the ones that push society in the right direction by proposing to solutions, which are often controversial because of how radical they seem to society.

Controversy is a given, when dealing with people with strong opinions, with people who have lots to lose. Tensions rise as words are exchanged, and eventually people resort to violence. All these problems occur because of people trying to answer the “Big Question”. There is no one “Big Question” but many all have different significance to different people. It is the job of the thinkers to think outside the box and solve their own “Big Question”.

Schools Need Personal Touch

William Deresiewics of Yale University and Mark Edmundson from the University of Virginia have come together to challenge the view of college institutions. In their segment “Is there still room for the big question in college?” on bloggingheads.tv, colleges’ true motivation is called to question. Colleges are supposed to be institutions that shape young adults so they will have a successful future. Deresiewics has a different view and says “The purpose of Yale is to produce Yale alumni”. He says that colleges are turning away from the humanities and focusing on producing alumni that can produce high level incomes as to donate to the school. In the conversation between the two professors there are many topics brought to attention. One of the main points is about leaders and thinkers.

Deresiewics’s definition of a leader is a person who inserts themselves into an institution and can rise to the top and keep the institution running. He believes that colleges are trying to produce leaders and not thinkers. Thinkers are people who challenge everything and do not go along with the system. This puts a much larger emphasis on science and math, and takes away from the humanities. He also says that schools used to encourage students and to ask themselves “What is the good life” and “What is the good society”.

Both of these questions are important for every person to ask but is it colleges responsibility to get people to ask these questions? It should be. Colleges are responsible for shaping the future generations of the world and for shaping their moralities. Students go to colleges with the intention of learning how to be successful in their adult life. If people are going to be successful they need to have their own understanding of success and not let society tell them what it is. People need to be individual thinkers rather than be robots and obey all commands. Thinkers and leaders both have qualities the world needs but they are both too extreme. If the world was made of thinkers there would be mass anarchy and nothing would ever get done. If the world was made of only leaders then there would be no passion in the world and people would lose all of their humanity. People need to have a combination between the two. The question is how do colleges promote a mix between the two.

The major point in the conversation between Deresiewics and Edmundson is big schools cannot do much to guide each student throughout their college career. The only solution to the problem is for professors to spend more time with their students. Most Ivy League teachers are too busy with their own personal research to have the time to spend with their students. It is a big deterrent to have very little to no contact between student and teacher, but Ivy League schools are still the most attractive school for high school students. People want to go to these schools because it will help their career in the future, but is a person’s career the most important thing? No doubt your career is important but is that what makes for a “Good life”.

I agree with both of the professors when they say that people just need to continue to talk about this situation more in order for progress to be made. If people talk and write about these questions it will cause discussion and force people to think about these questions. People have to be able to think for themselves and just use universities as a guide.

One of Chapman’s key attributes is its size. Smaller schools will always have a more personal relationship between student and teacher. My classes are small enough to where people notice if you are missing class. I am able to visit any of my teachers during their office hours five days a week and can email them any problem I might be having. That kind of an education allows student to absorb the knowledge that their teachers not only have about the subject they are teaching but about their own personal life lessons. There is also the inside track program which basically gives every student their own life coach. Chapman makes sure that if one of their students needs help, and not with just school, they can get it.

The problem with big schools is that there is a lack of personal touch. Teachers are responsible for educating the young people of our world but not just academically. Students should have some sort of a relationship with the person who is shaping their lives. Big universities are just creating alumni because the schools only see the students as a financial investment. The college is hoping that their alumni will have large salaries and be able to donate rather than hope that these students go on to live happy lives. Though a school is not going to be the only factor in a person’s perception of a good life or good society it can get students to try and find these questions. College professors have influence on their students and should take it on themselves to get their students to think and question what is really right.

Well Rounded Institutions, the Mind and Careers

What is the good life? What is a good society? These are the “big questions” discussed by William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson and whether they are still being asked in college. From what I understood in their argument, is that there really is no longer room in college for the big questions. While this may be true, I personally do not believe that these big questions should be asked in college anyway. While it may not be the case for many, through my experience, these “big” questions have been asked and somewhat addressed way before I even started college. A college or university should provide students help in finding the answers that they are looking for and give them the tools and knowledge to use their education however they want to use it.

Growing up in general will give any individual some sort of idea of how they want their life to turn out. The question of what a good life or good society may not be openly discussed but not everything in life is learned from discussion. Actually, most things learned in life are learned by actually living them. Why should a college pose such questions unless they can provide multiple paths in finding the answer. Things cannot be imagined, they have to be achieved. Anyone can have an idea of their good life and anyone can simply state what a good life and society should be. However, if someone lives out their life in contrast to their believes, it just plain hypocrisy.

College is the place to discover who you are, to accept and reject certain believes, and know why. The main way for a college to pose these questions is to become a well rounded institution that has many different fields to study and the best of everything. As Deresiewicz even addressed in his article called “The Disadvantages of an Elite Education”, an education should “exist to produce minds, not careers”. If your mind leads you to a career then great, but its easy for people to go to college believing that if they get a career out of their education, they learned something, which is not always the case. If people have options then, they might actually look into their options and do something with their life that fulfills their good life/society. Every person finds their own happy medium in life that they consider “good” by simply living their life.

That leads me to a topic that the professors talked about; is college merely a financial institution created to produce alumni that will become successful and donate ridiculous amounts of money, ie. The university- industrial complex. Well, it’s not a bad idea. There are more benefits to rich, successful, popular, and educated alumni, than well, college drop outs. Rich alumni most likely equal large quantities of money. How any person or institution can find fault with that is tough. But, like Deresiewicz brought up, there are those who believe that it can be a bad thing. If money is the main motivational factor for an institution, then obviously it’s a defective institution.

Wrong.

Consider how that alumni becomes successful. Of course that guy/girl could be born with savvy business intellect and incredible persuasion skills, most of the time however, they were not. They were educated to some degree at some institution that knows what its doing and has perfected their teaching to some degree. Furthermore, unless an individual is exposed to everything how can he or she know the difference between the good and bad life.

The main goal of a university should involve producing a well rounded education, that in turn would produce well rounded alumni, who most likely would become successful in some sense of the word, and being that they are successful, maybe through means of wealth, they will want to share that wealth with the wonderful institution that, well shaped them, and that means that they are providing monetary funding for what ever project it may be, and hopefully, aiding the institution in becoming a better institution, which that intelligent alumni would interpret as, well rounded and diverse. And the circle then repeats itself.

So, a person that is successful is well rounded and has had an opportunity to find what it is that they excel in. That again directs me to another point of discussion. The difference between leaders and thinkers. As defined by Deresiewicz, leaders are the individuals that make their way up the institutional pole and go along with everything in which that particular institution believes. Thinkers on the other hand are those individuals who are skeptical about what their institution has to offer and puts up certain constraints of the content that they take in.

Now, the rich alumni who donates to the school is what Deresiewicz would most likely consider a leader. The problem with this idea of “the leader” or “the thinker” is that any person can encompasses both of these “personalities”. Both the thinking aspect as well as the leader aspect should be encouraged when learning. A university is obviously going to maintain that university- industrial complex, but if they want to be a legitimate school they have to encourage both forms of thinking. Producing successful people is certainly an aspect that applicants will consider in choosing an institution of study but, I not everyone will want one position to listen to and to conform to their whole life. Opinions are based on life experiences and based on what an individual experiences, what they want out of life may change.

While I don’t think the “big” questions are necessary to establish “true teaching”, which Deresiewicz and Edmundson believe to be critical and out of the box thinking, they are bound to be asked. The guerrilla movement that was mentioned by the two is a prime example of that. True teaching, as they call it, will be taught, it just a matter of how often, by whom and, who wants to listen.

A leader is a thinker

A Leader and a thinker can be defined differently depending on who you are talking to and where . A leader as a person, who is strong, composed that has a positive attitude and most importantly someone who is able to set a good example for everyone around him or her. A leader can also be described as some who rises to the top and does everything to stay in that position, and also keeps the system going.

A thinker is someone who, Leads the way they think it should be done, and can dare to question the power or the institutions themselves if there is anything they think is not right. A thinker is opinionated and says it as it is, and does not always say things people want to hear but they should be heard. These types of people like to think inside the box rather than outside the box.

In most of the Institutions today there are more thinkers than leaders but once they enter the institution and start to become more adapted to the institutions, they train them to be leaders but some never change, they remain thinkers. Institutions like universities need both of these people because if everyone was a leader then there would be no one to lead, and there would be no changes in the universities themselves and also in society.

When the professors in the video are talking about leaders vs. thinkers, their giving their own personal opinion on what they think about this subject. One cannot assume that everyone thinks like these men, you also have to ask yourself a few questions, if the universities did not want thinkers in their institutions why are they continuing to admit thinkers? The answer to this is that they need a balance, because there are disadvantages and advantages about having thinkers. They might come up with bright ideas that advance the universities and they can ruin the image of the university. I agree with professor William when he says that leaders never show ''skepticism, sarcasm'' however it does not mean that if they do not show it they are not thinking it, ''A wise man thinks about all the things he says but doesn’t say all the things he thinks'', the reason why leaders can never say or show what they are thinking is because tit would cause chaos and there would be no leadership to stop it.

In this video it talks about the ''big questions'' and how they are not addressed in the time that they should be, that time being college. But really Universities/colleges do not have these answers for us only we do, all the institution can do is help us understand the questions and the answers are ours to find out. The problem is that these institutions are not helping people understand the questions because most of people in these places,have not found the answers to these questions. The reason for this is that when they were in the same position that their students are in the answers were already given to them, but the answers were what the institutions at the time wanted them to be and do,most came to find it was not what they wanted.

What was done then is what is trying to be done today but there are and more thinkers coming into these institutions and can not change their opinion. And because the universities are more interested in creating leaders, they let the thinkers think and concentrate on the leaders ,who keep the system running. It is just like the examples given of the Yale student,’’ the purpose of Yale College is to manufacture Yale alumni’’ I think that this is the only way the system can work. We need a balance of thinkers and leaders, but it is becoming more apparent to me that in future there going to be more thinkers than leaders.

One of the links next to the video, takes you to a part of a book called '' the disadvantage of an elite education'' something important is mentioned here that ''being and intellectual begins with thinking your way outside of your assumptions and the systems that enforce them'' I completely agree with this statement because an intellectual will think like that but in order to make something out of life they need to work with the system and keep with the system going . I think we should think about things the way we want to but sometimes it is better off for keep our thoughts to ourselves. A leader is leading everyone not just him or herself. But then again what would happen if there was no elite education? I think that would be more of a disadvantage because some people learn better when they are with people like themselves, it would also bring a sense of inequality among the students.

These two professors are criticizing the institutions as they know them but it is not all universities that are like that . Most of the points made are generalizations , but some are facts that can not be changed . Its all about how the scholar thinks at the end of their time there, the most important thing is what they feel that they gained form these institutions.

I Think I'm a leader (now with 99% more sense)

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.

Addictions and Sheep

The computer, and subsequently the Internet, has devoured our lives. That's what I surmised from the Bloggingheads video. I have to agree with a lot of the things mentioned in this section on Computers, Drugs and Modern Student Culture. Most of what I could hear through the atrocious audio quality, I already knew. I'm a Computer Science major, I've studied the social influence of computers. It's something that many of us are aware of, the addictive nature of technology. But then there's a lot I have to disagree with on their arguments on culture. Technology, yes, social norm no. It's hard to fully understand what we go through without being one of us. And that's what these two professors aren't. Students.

Unfortunately, it's that plus more that made this video undeniably boring to me. There wasn't clash, there wasn't conflict. I want to see some action! I want them to jump at each others' throats, not agree on every bloody point. If you're going to throw two professors at each other in a head to head video chat conference for a blog, you might as well make it two different people. Instead, they are so similar, the video might as well have been a single person giving a lecture. They had interesting points, there's no denying that. The presentation was just so disappointingly boring when it had so much potential. What a waste...

I spent most of my life isolated from other kids my age. The result was that I grew up with a very adult perspective on life, mostly my parents'. I also grew up in a third world country cut off from most modern technology. Combine the two and I'm an old fart in a young whipper snapper's body. When I come across other people 100 percent absorbed in technology, I wonder why? And it wasn't just the Internet. Professor Edmundson was wrong. I deal with people even now obsessed with the latest rumors on Gossip Girl, or who Sylar will kill next in Heroes. We are still attached to our televisions, just as much as to our computers.

His point is true, however. People like constant entertainment. xkcd said it best. His other argument was also true. People always want to be somewhere else. They don't want to be in their crappy homes living their crappy lives. They want to be in the show, they want to live the lives of the people they avidly watch. They want to be the level 60 sorcerer that they spend hours training. Nevertheless Professor Deresiewicz is wrong. Can't be right all the time, sorry. People do bond with technology. It allows us to live in a fantasy world, to escape. Escapism is the reason behind this. Just as they said, 30 years ago people had one form of drug, that drug was to escape the world. Acid gives you a wonderful kaleidoscope of new worlds. Ecstasy turns the entire world into a hedonist's perspective. Weed makes everything funny. It's all to escape the harsh realities. Now instead of drugs, we're are using the Internet. Our addiction went from chemicals to technology.

Part of the problem is, I can't disagree completely with what Deresiewicz (God, his students must have had fun with his name) without sounding like a hypocrite. He talks about how a lot of the students that are overloaded are those who fall back on several extra curricular activities, building up "a parallel university". I'm in much the same predicament, as are several of my friends. Student run clubs for everything from computer science to math to theater to radio. I'm in loads. It's exhausting, but they're all things I enjoy doing. It makes me wish that a lot of this was worth credit, but it isn't. Universities, despite claiming to be liberal arts and open to general education, aren't about giving you what you want to learn, but what they think you should learn. It amuses me that Chapman was the filming location for the 'bad' school in the film Accepted. The one that didn't agree with the principle of allowing students to create their own classes.

Edmundson's call for dissension brought back some fond memories of my History teacher's class, when he would challenge us to disagree with his theories on causes of historical events. But we didn't. We didn't challenge his all powerful authority. They're right, "there is no no to the yes in our culture". We've lost a lot of the independent thought that resulted from rebellion. And even in the rebellion that does exist today, the prep culture, the goth culture, the emo culture, the whatever-clique-you-choose culture, they're all the same, without a single independent thought. They don't idealize one person, and attempt to follow that example, they idealize each other and remain in a stagnant sense of mind. Nothing new, nothing to reach for. They are each other.

Therein lies the inherent problem of their arguments. While they might have one or two good points, the underlying logic is wrong. They struggle to understand us, but one can't truly understand someone else without being them. Deresiewicz claims there is no more 'soft socialism' in society. Hardly. Yes, there isn't independent thought from others, but that's the way it's always been. That much hasn't changed from the past. The ones they mention, such as Marx, those were rare exceptions in life. Hegel didn't grow up in a neighborhood full of philosophical geniuses, he was the only one. Of course most of the students they run into aren't going to be the next Marx. The odds are 1 in 6 billion. That's one HUGE number.

When you come down to it, they're going about everything the wrong way. This video is nothing more than the self righteous ramblings of two pretentious old farts. They struggle to understand student culture without realising that nothing has changed. We'll always have our addictions. We'll always be mindless drones. There will be the occasional person that stands out. Who is different. Jesus. Ghandi. Abraham Lincoln. Homer. Adam Smith. But how many billions, no trillions of people have lived and died meaningless lives before they came along?

A New Take on an Old Idea (Revised)

Are we really missing out on knowledge that our schools and institutions should be teaching us? The answer to this question is looked at closely in a recent Bloggingheads video involving William Deresiewicz, of Yale University, and Mark Edmundson, of the University of Virginia. In the section entitled, “Are there still room for big questions in college?” The two discuss the modern ways of the University and how a elite education might not necessarily be as great as it’s hyped up to be.

The video is set up with the screen divided in half with Deresiewicz on one side and Edmundson on the other. I found this quite interesting and fitting because when one made a statement we were able to see how the other reacted and what kind of facial expressions he made. This was fitting since these gentlemen though relatively close on the east coast are from different areas and could have different takes on some of the topics. Also, the video was part of a larger page that allowed the viewer to access some of the articles that these two men had written in regards to the topic at hand. I found this helpful in further clarifying the statements and ideas that they were discussing.

The article that seemed to be one of the central pieces to their discussion was Deresiewicz “ Disadvantage of an Elite Education”. This article was central to the idea that true teaching involves one on one time between students and their professors. I highly agreed with this statement because, being the type of person who learns better in an intimate environment, being thrown into a classroom with two hundred other students can be quite difficult to handle. This has actually been something that has played a part in my own life. The idea of one on one teaching sounds great on paper, but there is defiantly a huge amount of sacrifices that need to be made in order for one on one time to occur. Teachers would have to make time out of their already busy schedules to talk with students. It might be more fitting to make these one on one sessions rather small group meetings that way teachers can save time by talking to more students at once. With that said, some sort of system in which students can have a more personal relationship with their professors is essential to improving student learning.

Further the two men discuss this idea of leaders and thinkers of an institution. They came to the consensus that a leader buys in to all the ways of the school and its structure. Leaders are those who follow without question and are able to rise up to the top of their institution. While, thinkers are skeptics, they question everything and accept nothing. The idea of leaders and thinkers are at complete opposite sides of the spectrum, most college students fall somewhere in between the two. There are defiantly advantages and disadvantages to both. Leaders tend to be the more popular ones, who are involved with school activities and are liked by most. On the contrary, when a leader makes a mistake it becomes “blown up” because the leaders are supposed to set examples. Thinkers tend to be more highly educated, have the ability to “think outside the box”. The disadvantage of being a thinker comes from people’s view of them. They’re seen as outsiders, who are unsocial and have discontent with everything. The real question should be how far to the thinker/leader side are they? In my case I fall somewhere between completely neutral and a leader. I have a tendency to follow what I’m told and sometimes forget to stop and think, is this really right or am I just being oblivious to my own surroundings?

The idea that schools are trying to produce leaders rather than thinkers that way leaders can comeback and later invest in their institution and help the institution continue to modernize and grow, brings forth the idea that universities are simply industrial complexes. A school that aims to produce all leaders is like a car factory in that the cars are produced and produced and once they are sold the money is used to further establish the factory and improve tools and machinery. The university is like that car factory and the cars are the leaders who are produced that comeback later in life and donate to their alumni to keep the school moving along. This idea of a school being an industrial complex makes absolute sense when being looked at from the standpoint of the alumnus who donates back to their institution.

Lastly, a piece not mentioned in the video but, discussed in Deresiewicz’s article of how students at elite colleges are deprived of some of their innate freedoms can be seen from Deresiewicz’s observation at Yale. “I’ve been struck, during my time at Yale, by how similar everyone looks. You hardly see any hippies or punks or art-school types, and at a college that was known in the ’80s as the Gay Ivy, few out lesbians and no gender queers. The geeks don’t look all that geeky; the fashionable kids go in for understated elegance. Thirty-two flavors, all of them vanilla.” I found this highly interesting because modern society is the same way. They develop this idea to the public of what’s wrong and what’s right and the public is unwilling to go against the common ideals.

All in all the segment of the video makes one really think about their university and gives them a different perspective to look at rather than the one being shown to them everyday at school.