Analysis Of Jacob Neusner's Speech 'The Graduates Didn T Hear'

In todays’ society college has become more so a necessity rather than a luxury. With a job market without as many opportunities as in the past, college degrees have become required to gain most well paying jobs. Due to this it is logical to say that college should be an environment that properly prepares the young adult to succeed in the working world. Although there are some who believe that the youth of todays generation are unprepared, and that institutes of higher learning are not doing anything to aid the situation. This is a view shared by Jacob Neusner in his speech “The Speech The Graduates Didn’t Hear” and by Fred Reed in his blog post “On Campus at U.PE: The University Of Practically Everywhere”. The ideas both these men exhibit

are centered around the main theory that college students today have a false sense of entitlement, and are unready to forge out into the working world. While also displaying the belief that there are systemic problems with college as well. Both may seem cynical to some, but there is some validity in their beliefs. Although while some points may seem valid other are vast generalizations and can simply be over the top and seem calloused. Altogether there seems to be more fallacy than validity in their beliefs.
One of the main issues that Neusner attacks is the system of college itself.

He holds the belief that college is not doing its job in preparing students. They think college is to easy and not giving the students what they need to succeed in the real world. Nuesner says “For four years we created an altogether forgiving world, in which whatever slight effort you gave was all that was demanded.” Nuesner here is implying that college was easy and demanded little work to succeed. This is inherently false maybe just to pass little work was needed but to do well a higher amount of work is required. College at times can be a very stressful environment this shows in a recent study done in 2013 done by The american college health association. The numbers it came up with show that in 2013 over fifty percent of students experienced “overwhelming anxiety”, Over thirty percent “felt so depressed it was difficult to function”, and that seven percent “seriously considered suicide”. These number alone show that we must do away with the mantra that college is an easy “forgiving world” that Nuesner says it is. Clearly college can be just as unforgiving and stressful as anything experienced in the working world. If anything if the working world is as hard as these men claim it to be, possibly experiencing stress and anxiety has prepared students to go through those same feelings that might reoccur again when beginning a

job.
Another one of the main arguments Neusner and Reed pose is the notion that the students are to blame for their unpreparedness. Neusner believes that students are irresponsible and are not accustomed to the consequences of quitting. Or being liable for their failures and shortcomings. While Reed tends to believe students are egotistical, and wasting their opportunity for growth at college with a lack of maturity. Nuesner proposes his argument when he states that “ But starting now, in the world to which you go, failure marks you. Confronting difficulty by quitting leaves you changed. Outside Brown quitters are no heroes”. In the normal sense yes quitting is normally something that is frowned upon. Although to some quitting may be the prudent thing to do. If a student is doing poorly in a class and its hurting their gpa dropping the class is simply the intelligent path to to take. Its unfair to criticize students for taking advantage of the system college is dealing them. While Nuesner does delve into systemic problems at college. His criticism of students is simply off basis. Even in the working world quitting can be the wise thing to do. If your in a job where you feel your underpaid, undervalued, and not happy or driven to succeed its possibly the best outcome would be to quit and search for a new job. He also mentions failure as something that marks you, which is a fallacy. Failure is one of the greatest foundations for success most who succeed have failed in their life, but we don't judge them on their failures we praise them for their success.
There is also the argument Fred Reed poses about college students. Reed says “You are spoiled, self important, narcissistic, infantile brats, unprepared for college work., in which you likely have little interest. In the past, students of your age were almost adult and trying to learn how to be adults.” The first flaw is that this seems to be a vast generalization, while some student may have some of these traits, to imply all students are all like that is inappropriate and unjust to students who put in a plethora of effort into their work. Also his mention of students of the past seems rather intriguing. He seems to promote students of the past compare to their current counterpart. Although Nuesner and his criticism of students dates back to the 80’s. It seems as if maybe students of the past weren't better than students of today. Its likely students are just an easy group to criticize considering they are young and have not been given the opportunity to establish themselves in life yet like the people criticizing them. Its likely that a lot of them are prepared for a job in the working world, given their able to acquire one related to their major.
Reed also poses an issue when he attacks the purpose of college universities and their professors. He states that “the state of affair is not entirely your fault. Here is something you need to know: This university is interested only in collecting your tuition” he also says “Today the younger faculty do not themselves know why they or you are here. You are leading the edge of a dark age”.
Overall while Nsuener and Reed do make some compelling arguments, most of them seem to be off base.

The claim that students are not being prepared well enough for the working world is simply a false notion. College students are being as prepared as they have always been. They major in something relating to the job they want and then they search for that job. No one can ever truly be prepared for things they have not experienced yet. As said before its easy to criticize a generation of people for flaws when they haven't had their opportunity to cement their place in the world yet. Altogether they pose a critical and cynical view on society. Although the fact that these arguments are separated by about forty years only shows the fact that its common for older generations to criticize the younger ones. In an ever advancing society there are bound to be differences in lifestyles between generations and its common for each generation to prefer theres over the others because of nostalgia and their own personal bias. In conclusion while their arguments may have validity at the surface level. When you dig deeper into there views and what they are saying, it proves that what they are saying is a

fallacy.