In the story “Have it your way”: Consumerism Invades Education the main point the author is trying to make is. We cannot let the term “customer” replace student; a student is a learner being taught by somebody who is an expert in said field, a customer is somebody being served they get what they want and they leave and that’s it. To say a customer and a student are the same thing would be wrong. We currently live in a “Have it your way!” world; everybody gets what they want in a prepackaged form with no thought process behind it and they don’t get what they don’t want. We cannot put students in this “Have it your way!” category because they won’t always get it their way. They are getting it their instructors way because they are learning from …show more content…
them “ We cannot let this mentality ruin thinking ruin our academic system of higher learning. It’s like we have become a nation of robots; we let other people tell us where to go, what to do, how to dress and what to eat. Even worse we let them tell us what not to do as well; not one person is thinking outside the box or wanting to think for themselves. So basically, they are living our lives for us. When I say they and other people I mean “the Norm” because after all “The customer is always right” right? Wrong!
A student is a student not a customer an education is not something that comes wrapped up nice in a value meal. It’s something you must work for quite hard I might add and it requires a lot of individual thinking as well. The author Simon Benlow makes an excellent point on this “consumerists students come to college waiting to be tickled, waiting to see the big boom, waiting for the car chase or the sex scene, waiting for the French fry, waiting for the Cherry Coke. What they encounter, however, are rooms filled with ingredients. They see only black and white words-where they anticipate smashy colors and extravagant tools for getting their attention. In the face of pure ingredients (the stuff for making meaning), they will be confused… and ultimately bored.” We will not only lose our identity as a nation but our nation itself if we lose our thinkers because we won’t be able to rebuild and move forward to the future. Benlow goes on further to exclaim; “Consumerist students (or those who have been tricked into thinking like consumers) will also have a difficult time understanding principals. Principals, established doctrines which are to be followed, or evaluated, in the process of making knowledge, don’t really exist in consumer culture (unless you count slogans as doctrines). Because everything is based on the eccentricities of the individual; they need not ever think outside his or her own desires.” When I think back to the best
teachers
William Deresiewicz comments on this statement by claiming that only the commercial purpose now survives as a recognized value. This statement makes me think about my friend, Jacky, who’s a college freshman this year. Jacky told me that his goal in life is to move to California and become a social worker. It’s already been around two weeks since college started for Jacky and he claims he hates it. In order to make his dreams come true, he has to take the required classes.This to me shows that he doesn’t seem to be into the whole college experience but he’s in it for the degree in order to fulfill his
After perusing the words of Kevin Carey in his work, Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges, it would be easy to assume that, in his mind, the downfalls overpower the threads of benefits found in for-profit institutions. After reviewing his article, this would definitely be the opinion of any reader; notwithstanding, his intent is to persuade his audience that for-profit colleges are a victim of unfair treatment. However, Carey exhibits a major flaw in his presentation: in an effort to justify his position he first lists known oppositions, but does not address them. Carey introduces a man named Michael Clifford—a successful entrepreneur with no college education.
College is marketed towards students as an essential part of building a successful future. The United States “sells college” to those who are willing to buy into the business (Lee 671). With the massive amounts of student debts acquired every year, and the rising costs of
In the essay, “College Consumerism Run Amok” authored by Kevin Carey describe how colleges are careless with their money. Throughout the essay, Kevin Carey explains why normal people think the average price of college tuition has risen across the United States. People believe college tuition is rising because students demand colleges to have “creature comforts”, such as luxury dorms, a fully operational gym, and a climbing wall. Also, that the creation for “creature comforts” in colleges has caused academic standards to decline. Yet, colleges market to students with these amenities instead of showing students comparable statistics: the quality of teaching, scholarships, and academic environment. Kevin Carey, in the end, sums up his idea with
In the article “College is Not a Commodity. Stop treating it like one,” Hunter Rawlings explains how people today believe that college is a commodity, but he argues that it’s the student’s efforts; which gives value to their education. Rawlings states that in recent years college has been looked at in economic terms, lowering its worth to something people must have instead of earn. As a professor Rawlings has learned that the quality of education has nothing to do with the school or the curriculum, but rather the student’s efforts and work ethic. Rawlings explains the idea that the student is in charge of the success of his or her own education, and the professor or school isn’t the main reason why a student performs poorly in a class. Rawlings
1. The main idea is not only that owning stuff is not the key to happiness, it’s also that consumers today own more than they need to thrive which directly impacts the environment. Hill illustrates the environmental impact by showing statistics of global warming today versus the past century, and how consumerism is leading to a hotter climate. Hill debunks claims of buying happiness by discussing a study where stress hormones spike to their highest when people are managing their personal belongings. Hill’s most prominent example that consumerism is not the answer is himself, as he discusses some of the most stressful times of his life being right after coming into a large sum of money and buying whatever he fancied. When Hill concludes his article, he states that “I have less—and enjoy more. My space is small. My life is big” (213).
Students are in colleges because they are told to, or because they still want to be financially depend on their parents and not have to worry about growing up to face the real world. The author in her article writes such ideas. Furthermore, since colleges became a big industry in the 60’s, and now the number of people attending has fallen, colleges use marketing skills to bring more students in. They try to make college sound as easy as possible to make more people register. Students, once in college are not happy and drop out,...
Is college a commodity or is it not? This question seems to be popping up everywhere. In the article, “College is not a commodity. Stop treating it like one,” Washington Post write Hunter Rawlings gives his opinion on why college is not a commodity. He discusses the factors about the values and actions of the students and their education.
During my first few days of sophomore year at Stuyvesant High School, I saw how the ways of thinking were diverse in each of my classes. In my European Literature class, where, in our first reading assignment, we questioned the purpose of education itself. I always went with the flow in my learning, and never stopped to say to myself, “Why am I doing this to myself?”. However, once I read Live and Learn by Louis Menand, I started to think about Menand’s three theories of college and juxtapose each of them to my experience so far in high school. In the end, I concluded that many of my classes followed the main points of Theory 2, which was the theory that I mostly agreed with when I read the article for the first time.
Throughout the years, America has always debated whether education is needed- if it helps people succeed or not. The argument in the past was always over high school education, which is now mandatory. That decision has helped the US rise economically and industrially. Today, the US is in the middle of the same debate- this time, over college. Some, like David Leonhardt, a columnist for the business section of The New York Times, think a college education creates success in any job. Others, such as Christopher Beha, an author and assistant editor of Harper’s Magazine, believe that some college “education” (like that of for-profit schools) is a waste of time, and can even be harmful to students. Each stance on this argument has truth to it, and there is no simple answer to this rising issue in an ever changing nation full of unique people. Any final decision would affect the United States in all factions- especially economically and socially. However, despite the many arguments against college, there is overwhelming proof that college is good for all students, academically or not.
The first point that Etelson makes in her article is about the pressure that students are under today, she often refers to it as “educational pressure cooker” (Etelson, 2015). Today, every student is overwhelmed with pressure. Middle class students have pressure to get into a top college. Poor students feel
...ecome so reliable and dependats to their gadgets and materials than on people that if taken away, distress and unhappiness usually is an end result though theyr are just mere objects. However people may argue that consumers are the key to businesse success, they are also producers them selves though its true that without needs and wants, out world woudnt be that modernaized and advance as its today but consumers are just given mere importance for their loyalty to the products and play their part which is just to consume whatever is thrown at them despite any freedom in choices or decision making. Hence we consumers have been given importance as the’ public opnion’ and given the spotlight, but sadly unless we realize that this is all a game of manipulation we will continue to trapped in the shadows of the cave just like the prisoners in Plato’s Allegory of the cave.
In Mark Edmundson’s article “Education’s Hungry Heart”, he talks about the importance of a student having a hungry heart within the classroom. He begins by explaining that college may not be for everybody. For those whose future career doesn’t necessarily need a degree they may want to rethink the education they’re pursing, especially if it will be nothing but a waste of money and leave them with a pile of debts. He then goes to say that regardless of whether a person may need college or not what makes all the difference is how a student flourishes in a classroom. Edmundson’s purpose throughout the whole article was to really show the reader how important it is for anyone who is in college to have a hungry heart. He states how he’s had about
"If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold."
Due to the effects of higher enrolment, teaching methods are now directed towards suiting the masses, thus everything has become less personal, as well as, less educationally in depth. Teaching techniques consist of multiple choice tests, rather than written answer questions which require critical analysis, as Jacobs states “So many papers to mark, relative to numbers and qualities of mentors to mark them, changed the nature of test papers. Some came to consist of “True or False?” and “Which of the following is correct?” types of questions” (Jacobs 49). While teachers also no longer engage in one on one conversations with students, but merely in a lecture hall among masses and everyone is seen as just a student number. Jacobs states a complaint from a student “who claimed they were shortchanged in education. They had expected more personal rapport with teachers” (Jacobs 47). Universities are too much focused on the cost benefit analysis, of the problem of increased enrolment, with the mind set of “quantity trumps quality” (Jacobs 49). The benefit of student education and learning is not being put first, but rather the expansion of the university to benefit financial issues. Taylor states “individualism and the expansion of instrumental reason, have often been accounted for as by-products