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.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Big Q's + Monoculture
William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson talk on bloggingheads.com about "The Academic Industrial Complex”. During their hour long discussion two of the many points mentioned where whether there is room for the “big questions” on campus and how individualistic society has become. Their argument is weakened by a contradiction in William’s article “The Disadvantages of an Ivy League Campus” and lack of qualification and mention of the opposition’s view when arguing about the “big questions”. Another interesting point is mentioned, monoculture, but is not elaborated on or used to strengthen their argument.
Mark and Will bring up the point that “big questions” such as “What is the good life?” and “What is good society?” are no longer mentioned at college partly because college’s are no longer religious institutions, and partly because college’s purpose is to prepare students for a career - rather than molding their minds.
While Will and Mark are correct that neither of those questions are being brought to student’s attention, they do not have any ideas how this could be resolved, such as where could these questions be brought up? Perhaps students could take a required course where they write and debate about life’s important questions – this class could count towards philosophy credit. Or freshmen counseling sessions could contain philosophical discourse on top of the typical “How are you doing or what is going on in your life?” discussions.
They are also correct in assuming that a university’s purpose is to train for a career. But this is because students would not choose to go to a school which did not offer the best teachers and classes for them to succeed in their chosen career path. Students expect to answer life’s questions on their own, rather than going to a preacher and have them explain their personal solution. While figuring out these questions they want to be supporting themselves and their families, which college helps enable them to do.
Another point Mark and Will bring up while discussing the “big questions” is how individualistic society has become. They point out that these questions are not important in the university because people are obsessed with succeeding in school and their chosen fields. But in Deresiewicz article "The Disadvantages of an Ivy League Campus" he mentions how incapable students are of being alone. They are constantly on their phones or laptops instant messaging, and even go over to each other’s rooms to work on homework because they find solitude disconcerting. So, which is it - are students individualistic, collective, or a medley of the two?
Mark brings up the idea of monoculture during the “Computers, drugs, and Modern Student Culture” section of the video. He says on campus he sees students who all dress the same - there are few students who stand out with punk or hippie outfits. During class no one tells him he is wrong. Everyone buys into digital culture by bringing their laptops to class and using their cell phones constantly. This is an interesting idea I wish had been elaborated on more - monoculture could also be used to explain why “the big questions” and religion have dropped out of college campuses. Instead of students fulfilling their subconscious desire to come together through going to church, they’ve come together in daily life.
The internet and cell phones are so important to students because they can keep in touch all of the time. Instead of socializing on Sunday’s with their fellow believers they keep the channel of communication open 24/7. They have philosophical, and less philosophical, discussions all the time without the help of a religious figure or college’s nudging.
Many students are also open-minded and accepting – this has also led to monoculture. When questioning others beliefs, dress, choice of music, traditions, etc. they listen to the other side and try to understand it. They’ll discover something they like, or even that they were wrong, and adapt it into their life-style. The “lack of opposition” abounds because students are acknowledging other points of view as not being wrong, just different.
While Mark and Will’s discussion was full of interesting points, the lack of discord and representation of the opposition made the video hard to watch. The video and their articles contradictory content also weakened the video’s argument. An interesting point, monoculture, was mentioned but not expanded upon or used to strengthen their argument. Compared to the articles, the video itself was a disappointment.
Mark and Will bring up the point that “big questions” such as “What is the good life?” and “What is good society?” are no longer mentioned at college partly because college’s are no longer religious institutions, and partly because college’s purpose is to prepare students for a career - rather than molding their minds.
While Will and Mark are correct that neither of those questions are being brought to student’s attention, they do not have any ideas how this could be resolved, such as where could these questions be brought up? Perhaps students could take a required course where they write and debate about life’s important questions – this class could count towards philosophy credit. Or freshmen counseling sessions could contain philosophical discourse on top of the typical “How are you doing or what is going on in your life?” discussions.
They are also correct in assuming that a university’s purpose is to train for a career. But this is because students would not choose to go to a school which did not offer the best teachers and classes for them to succeed in their chosen career path. Students expect to answer life’s questions on their own, rather than going to a preacher and have them explain their personal solution. While figuring out these questions they want to be supporting themselves and their families, which college helps enable them to do.
Another point Mark and Will bring up while discussing the “big questions” is how individualistic society has become. They point out that these questions are not important in the university because people are obsessed with succeeding in school and their chosen fields. But in Deresiewicz article "The Disadvantages of an Ivy League Campus" he mentions how incapable students are of being alone. They are constantly on their phones or laptops instant messaging, and even go over to each other’s rooms to work on homework because they find solitude disconcerting. So, which is it - are students individualistic, collective, or a medley of the two?
Mark brings up the idea of monoculture during the “Computers, drugs, and Modern Student Culture” section of the video. He says on campus he sees students who all dress the same - there are few students who stand out with punk or hippie outfits. During class no one tells him he is wrong. Everyone buys into digital culture by bringing their laptops to class and using their cell phones constantly. This is an interesting idea I wish had been elaborated on more - monoculture could also be used to explain why “the big questions” and religion have dropped out of college campuses. Instead of students fulfilling their subconscious desire to come together through going to church, they’ve come together in daily life.
The internet and cell phones are so important to students because they can keep in touch all of the time. Instead of socializing on Sunday’s with their fellow believers they keep the channel of communication open 24/7. They have philosophical, and less philosophical, discussions all the time without the help of a religious figure or college’s nudging.
Many students are also open-minded and accepting – this has also led to monoculture. When questioning others beliefs, dress, choice of music, traditions, etc. they listen to the other side and try to understand it. They’ll discover something they like, or even that they were wrong, and adapt it into their life-style. The “lack of opposition” abounds because students are acknowledging other points of view as not being wrong, just different.
While Mark and Will’s discussion was full of interesting points, the lack of discord and representation of the opposition made the video hard to watch. The video and their articles contradictory content also weakened the video’s argument. An interesting point, monoculture, was mentioned but not expanded upon or used to strengthen their argument. Compared to the articles, the video itself was a disappointment.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Enter To Learn, Leave To Serve
Professors William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson held a discussion about the current academic intentions of universities today. The discussion was entitled "The Academic-Industrial Complex". The debate was held on bloggingheads.com, a website with a collection of split-screen internet debates based on whatever topic at hand. The site marks each video into different parts so that the viewer can jump into any section he or she pleases. Unless you switch the video to full screen, you will find your self easily distracted by the pictures, headlines and advertisements on the side. At many times during the online video a found my self focusing my attention to other interesting articles like, "Mr. Mayhem" and "Alaska 101". I think it would better the viewer, and better the message the site is trying to convey, if the distractions were limited. The Video was split into two halves, displaying each professor. The design of the video box and the basic outline is pretty user friendly and for the most part not harsh to look at.
When the two professor's were discussing, i found it pretty interesting to see there reactions to each others statements. It gave the impression of and actual face two face dialogue between two individuals. At the same time it allows you to view both men at the same time without the usual television editing that tends to just cut back and forth to each person talking.
The section that interested me the most, asked "is there still room for big questions in colleges". What that big question is was still puzzle's me today but the discussion in its self made me think about the intentions of todays college universities.
According Professor William Deresiewicz, the average college student is divided into two categories, "Thinkers" and "Leaders". A leader is a student who inserts himself into the institution and buys into their ideal and beliefs. He plays into the what the university want in a student and works his way up in the institution and ultimately gives back to it what he gains. "Leaders", according to Prof. Deresiewicz, are the believers in life the believe in the system and do not doubt was is going on. Ultimately they play the safe zone and dont ask questions, they just do it.
"Thinkers" are the skeptics. They are the ones who question whats going on in the university. Many of are famous revolutionaries today can be seen as "Thinkers". They do not buy in to what everyone else is doing unless they see it benefitting them self. According to Prof. Deresiewicz "Thinkers" are the true intellectuals.
In this debate universities are described as a business. There goal is to teach student what they believe so when the go off to be successful they can contribute (funds) to the university. There purpose is to manufacture alumni who will give back. These people are the "Leaders". Universities don't aim to make intellectuals anymore because there is no incentive to. If intellectuals do not buy into there message then the chances of them contributing to there society is slim.
One great example used in the story was the religious universities in the past. How we would teach the student about christianity in hopes that they would spread the word. In many ways that is what the universities of today aim to do, just on a more discrete level.
What i feel was a little unfair in the conversation was the word choice used to describe the two students. To be a "leader" and a "thinker" are two positive things. To make one out to be better than the other is wrong. I feel the ideal student should be a mixture of both. We as students chose our institution based on how we felt they could better prepare us for our future, so we of course should buy in to there teaching methods. However as young adult we should alway practice thinking for our selves since we ultimately make are own decision.
I believe every university does not have the intention of molding there students into money donating alumni. I believe the teach them there methods because the honestly believe in it as well. All universities teach there students with the goal in mind that they can go out and better the society.
"ENTER TO LEARN, LEAVE TO SERVE"
When the two professor's were discussing, i found it pretty interesting to see there reactions to each others statements. It gave the impression of and actual face two face dialogue between two individuals. At the same time it allows you to view both men at the same time without the usual television editing that tends to just cut back and forth to each person talking.
The section that interested me the most, asked "is there still room for big questions in colleges". What that big question is was still puzzle's me today but the discussion in its self made me think about the intentions of todays college universities.
According Professor William Deresiewicz, the average college student is divided into two categories, "Thinkers" and "Leaders". A leader is a student who inserts himself into the institution and buys into their ideal and beliefs. He plays into the what the university want in a student and works his way up in the institution and ultimately gives back to it what he gains. "Leaders", according to Prof. Deresiewicz, are the believers in life the believe in the system and do not doubt was is going on. Ultimately they play the safe zone and dont ask questions, they just do it.
"Thinkers" are the skeptics. They are the ones who question whats going on in the university. Many of are famous revolutionaries today can be seen as "Thinkers". They do not buy in to what everyone else is doing unless they see it benefitting them self. According to Prof. Deresiewicz "Thinkers" are the true intellectuals.
In this debate universities are described as a business. There goal is to teach student what they believe so when the go off to be successful they can contribute (funds) to the university. There purpose is to manufacture alumni who will give back. These people are the "Leaders". Universities don't aim to make intellectuals anymore because there is no incentive to. If intellectuals do not buy into there message then the chances of them contributing to there society is slim.
One great example used in the story was the religious universities in the past. How we would teach the student about christianity in hopes that they would spread the word. In many ways that is what the universities of today aim to do, just on a more discrete level.
What i feel was a little unfair in the conversation was the word choice used to describe the two students. To be a "leader" and a "thinker" are two positive things. To make one out to be better than the other is wrong. I feel the ideal student should be a mixture of both. We as students chose our institution based on how we felt they could better prepare us for our future, so we of course should buy in to there teaching methods. However as young adult we should alway practice thinking for our selves since we ultimately make are own decision.
I believe every university does not have the intention of molding there students into money donating alumni. I believe the teach them there methods because the honestly believe in it as well. All universities teach there students with the goal in mind that they can go out and better the society.
"ENTER TO LEARN, LEAVE TO SERVE"
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Roughie
William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson talk on bloggingheads.com about “The Academic Industrial Complex”.
The video was formatted so that the viewer could watch both faces as one spoke and the other listened. This format is probably fairly easy to put together, as you don’t have to cut in and out on whoever is speaking. It also allows you to watch the listener’s reaction to the speaker. But while listening to Will speak, I was easily distracted by Mark pulling his hair back or adjusting his glasses. This format does not work for me, either because I’m not able to focus enough or simply because video is a distracting media.
Another distracting part of the video was how what some of what was talked during the video contradicted their linked to articles. Mark mentions how individualistic society has become, with people focused on succeeding in school and in their own fields. Will mentions in “The Disadvantages of an Ivy League Education” how students have lost the ability to be alone. They are constantly instant messaging, texting, or talking on their cell phones. As an example he mentions a student who writes her essay at a friend’s house. Either could easily write alone, but prefer having another presence near.
When Mark talks about how society is all about the individual Will does not bring up his ideas about how students are obsessed with reaching out to each other and being connected 24/7. The lack of discord, or any general disagreement also made this video hard to watch. Both Mark and Will bring up interesting talking points, but neither refutes what is mentioned. They add onto the idea with their own, and cite interesting examples, but everything they say just proves the other one is right. A more effective and interesting way to present their ideas would have been to argue the opposite side.
An interesting thought they talk about, one which mine have never drifted of their own accord, was “Is there room for the big questions in the college?” They cite how universities were originally meant for teaching clergy, and how even after they expanded into broader teaching students still went to church every Sunday where they were exposed to thoughts of “What is the good life?” and “What is good society?”. Today these questions are only mentioned on campus during freshmen orientation and upon graduation.
Neither Mark nor Will mention where these questions could be brought up in college today. Many students are not religious, and many who are still don’t go to church every Sunday. Outside of church, these questions seem out of place. These questions seem appropriate in a philosophy class, or perhaps during freshmen counseling sessions. But would students want to hear about life’s questions in either of these contexts?
The University being a place for teaching careers and how to become “leaders” rather than “thinkers” is also mentioned. These ideas play into the University not mentioning life’s big questions because students no longer view college as a place to broaden their thinking, but as an essential step before entering the work force. University’s looking for students who will be focused on succeeding within their given parameters, rather than introspection and existential thinking. Preaching to students about what makes up a good life or society would seem obnoxious or pretentious to those with that outlook.
Mark brings up the idea of monoculture during the “Computers, drugs, and Modern Student Culture” section of the video. He says on campus he sees students who all dress the same, there are few students who stand out with punk or hippie outfits. During class no one tells him he is wrong. Everyone buys into digital culture by bringing their laptops to class and using their cell phones constantly. This is an interesting idea I wish had been elaborated on more - monoculture could also be used to explain why there “is no room for the big question in college” anymore. Instead of students fulfilling their subconscious desire to come together through going to church, they’ve come together in daily life.
Charity Needs Help With:
*Ideas/suggestions for how to write an intro/thesis
*Transitions between idea of video format, conflicting ideas, big questions, and monoculture
*A Conclusion…
The video was formatted so that the viewer could watch both faces as one spoke and the other listened. This format is probably fairly easy to put together, as you don’t have to cut in and out on whoever is speaking. It also allows you to watch the listener’s reaction to the speaker. But while listening to Will speak, I was easily distracted by Mark pulling his hair back or adjusting his glasses. This format does not work for me, either because I’m not able to focus enough or simply because video is a distracting media.
Another distracting part of the video was how what some of what was talked during the video contradicted their linked to articles. Mark mentions how individualistic society has become, with people focused on succeeding in school and in their own fields. Will mentions in “The Disadvantages of an Ivy League Education” how students have lost the ability to be alone. They are constantly instant messaging, texting, or talking on their cell phones. As an example he mentions a student who writes her essay at a friend’s house. Either could easily write alone, but prefer having another presence near.
When Mark talks about how society is all about the individual Will does not bring up his ideas about how students are obsessed with reaching out to each other and being connected 24/7. The lack of discord, or any general disagreement also made this video hard to watch. Both Mark and Will bring up interesting talking points, but neither refutes what is mentioned. They add onto the idea with their own, and cite interesting examples, but everything they say just proves the other one is right. A more effective and interesting way to present their ideas would have been to argue the opposite side.
An interesting thought they talk about, one which mine have never drifted of their own accord, was “Is there room for the big questions in the college?” They cite how universities were originally meant for teaching clergy, and how even after they expanded into broader teaching students still went to church every Sunday where they were exposed to thoughts of “What is the good life?” and “What is good society?”. Today these questions are only mentioned on campus during freshmen orientation and upon graduation.
Neither Mark nor Will mention where these questions could be brought up in college today. Many students are not religious, and many who are still don’t go to church every Sunday. Outside of church, these questions seem out of place. These questions seem appropriate in a philosophy class, or perhaps during freshmen counseling sessions. But would students want to hear about life’s questions in either of these contexts?
The University being a place for teaching careers and how to become “leaders” rather than “thinkers” is also mentioned. These ideas play into the University not mentioning life’s big questions because students no longer view college as a place to broaden their thinking, but as an essential step before entering the work force. University’s looking for students who will be focused on succeeding within their given parameters, rather than introspection and existential thinking. Preaching to students about what makes up a good life or society would seem obnoxious or pretentious to those with that outlook.
Mark brings up the idea of monoculture during the “Computers, drugs, and Modern Student Culture” section of the video. He says on campus he sees students who all dress the same, there are few students who stand out with punk or hippie outfits. During class no one tells him he is wrong. Everyone buys into digital culture by bringing their laptops to class and using their cell phones constantly. This is an interesting idea I wish had been elaborated on more - monoculture could also be used to explain why there “is no room for the big question in college” anymore. Instead of students fulfilling their subconscious desire to come together through going to church, they’ve come together in daily life.
Charity Needs Help With:
*Ideas/suggestions for how to write an intro/thesis
*Transitions between idea of video format, conflicting ideas, big questions, and monoculture
*A Conclusion…
The Big Questions
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 bad thing 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 college out and make lots of money so that they can send it back to the 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.
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 bad thing 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 college out and make lots of money so that they can send it back to the 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.
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 young adults so that 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 to 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 half to be able to think for themselves and just use universities as a guide. Chapman has the personal touch that allows questions to be asked and have professors with the time to answer them.
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. 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
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 to 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 half to be able to think for themselves and just use universities as a guide. Chapman has the personal touch that allows questions to be asked and have professors with the time to answer them.
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. 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
Two old farts talk out of their asses
We're addicted to our computers. We're addicted to the Internet. We're addicted to every status update our friends make on Facebook. Some of us are addicted to Juicy Campus, others are addicted to the pictures of his ex-girlfriend with another guy. The computer and subsequently the Internet has devoured our lives. 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.
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 other's 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 argument is true, however. People like constant entertainment. xkcd(http://xkcd.com/477/) 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. This time, Professor Deresiewicz is wrong. 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 using the Internet.
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.
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. They think they can just analyze and examine without care for the how the subject feels. I am not their tool. I am not their statistic. I am my own person, ungoverned by the rules of social norm. They should consider that we are all our own person before categorizing.
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 other's 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 argument is true, however. People like constant entertainment. xkcd(http://xkcd.com/477/) 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. This time, Professor Deresiewicz is wrong. 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 using the Internet.
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.
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. They think they can just analyze and examine without care for the how the subject feels. I am not their tool. I am not their statistic. I am my own person, ungoverned by the rules of social norm. They should consider that we are all our own person before categorizing.
Producing a New Breed in this Generation (Revised)
William Deresiewicz of Yale University and Mark Edmundson of the University of Virginia virtually met to discuss many issues pertaining to the new generation. In the segment that asks, "Is there still room for big questions in college?" the two men bring up two main issues 1. What the primary goals are of Universities as institutions during this day and age and 2. What are leaders in comparison to thinkers.
As a member of the new generation they are speaking of, I was immediately skeptical of their opinions that deal with the young people of today. I am part of this new generation and we don't enjoy being judged. Clearly Deresiewicz and Edmundson are respectable men who have been immersed in the academic world for quite some time, but I don't think anyone knows this generation better than students of today. Afterall, this is our time. Other generations are biased by default. Sure they have intelligence to bestow upon us, but they cannot speak for us and how we feel. They are merely outsiders judging based on their perceptions. We are the ones actually experiencing. Does this immediate skepticism label me as a "thinker?" William Deresiewicz defines a thinker as
"someone who learns to be skeptical of these structures right from the beginning including the university they're a part of... they're the person thinking about the context they've been put in... who thinks: Do I wanna be a part of this? and Do I want this around"
These thinkers Deresiewicz talks about seem to be curious, but overall very pessimistic. If everyone questioned why we do anything, nothing would ever get done. Yes I do agree with Deresiewicz, that institutions want to produce a high caliber of intellectuals in their alumni, but they do not want these intellectuals questioning the institution that they are a part of. Institutions have to work a lot harder to please thinkers than their polar opposite, the leaders.
Leaders go along with things and keep them going. They excel in their fields and propel the future. They are simply air headed, almost robotic beings who do what they're told and work extremely hard without questioning the basis for it all. Academic Institutions are looking to bring in leaders in admissions. I'm sure the freshman class at Yale and UVA is full of kids who have slaved away all of high school to simply hit the next step in life: college. They are positive and complete tasks without asking questions or hesitating. These leaders are left behind if they hesitate. These institutions receive a brand new class of leaders each fall and have one goal-to mold these leaders into productive hybrid leader/thinkers.
In order to be a well, rounded, productive intellectual in this world you must be a leader as well as a thinker. The successful people of the future need to have a drive to excel, to better themselves, and to understand why at the same time. These fusions of leader/thinkers are what institutions are really after. The main goal of institutionalized academia is not to manipulate minds however. In Mark Edmundson's recent article in the New York Times Magazine he comes to the conclusion that good teachers "push their students to test out new, potentially enriching perspectives." Leaders should take time to look at the world through the eyes of a thinker and vice versa.
I agree that the only way we can improve ourselves is to defer from our beef-headed ways and man-up to try out a new outlook on life. The goal being to create a hybrid leader/thinker. This hybrid of both will create a good society. They are capable of anything. They will lead the good life. It's what we're after isn't it?
In today's world you see leaders blindly rushing in flustered states to make the cut and keep their lead above others, and you also see thinkers sitting back contemplating it all but accomplishing very little. They lead opposite lives but neither will ever be satisfied. The hybrids will lead the good life. Life should be centered around balance and well-being, both in the present and in reference to the future.
The two men who provoke thinking on this topic of leaders/thinkers not only are well educated, but they are worthy of our respect. They will never fully understand the new generation. They see the world of academia from the other side, which as students we will never quite understand. One thing we can all agree on is the leader/thinker balance our society needs in order to be effective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)