Louis Menand Live And Learn Analysis

The article “Live and Learn” written by Louis Menand presents three different purposes of college. The first theory states that college is used as a sorting system to pick out the most intelligent students and use their potential. The second theory revolves around the idea that students are too focused on college and grades to the point where they lose their desire to learn and solely focus on the reward they believe college will bring them. Finally, the third theory is for students who want a vocational education due to the demand for specialized knowledge in our advancing economy. Despite how deeply this article explores these three theories, inconsistencies still exists within said theories. There are also many aspects of education that

are overlooked in the article since it is confined within these three theories.

The problem with theory one is that it portrays education’s sole purpose to be selection.

Selection cannot take place without inclusion. Although the accessibility of college has increased as compared to the 1950’s , theory one can only be valid if inclusion occurs before college. There are still so many people around the world who don’t have access to even a basic education. The people in underdeveloped countries who don’t have access to education are the same people who have undiscovered talents for practicing medicine or catalyzing the technological revolution. If college is the sorting process that presents society with people it sees fit as competent and intelligent, then the people with these undiscovered talents won’t be included in the pool of people society can choose from. They can’t move up the educational ladder, from elementary school to middle school to high school and eventually college. Society will only present opportunities to people who present themselves fully equipped. Talent is genetic, but knowledge is acquired through time and exposure. To society, a promising candidate has both talent and knowledge. To society, people without knowledge don’t count which is why theory one is invalid, because inclusion did not take place for there to be successful

selection.

Living in a country where education is something that is easily accessible makes us take school for granted sometimes.

There are days when I have an extremely narrow mind about school. I come to school with an attitude of absolute refusal to learn anything. It’s almost as if I’m throwing a mental temper tantrum. Having spoken with my peers on days like this I’ve discovered I’m not the only one who holds the occasional grudge towards school. If I collect all the knowledge that I could have gained if I kept an open mind about school and gave it to people who didn’t have access to education, they probably would have maximized that knowledge. Simply presenting education to people who don’t have access to it will immensely boost human resources. Imagine how quickly society can progress if we could present quality education to all those people. As much as we want to pretend all education is quality education, that is simply not true. By presenting quality education to people who are eager to absorb it, we are truly maximizing on human resources. We will be putting everyone on the same playing field which will more accurately tell who are the better players. College won’t be a successful sorting process with everyone on different levels. The only scenario in which theory one is acceptable is if education becomes something that is universally accessible and of the same

quality.

Being a victim of theory two, there is a main flaw that I would like to point out with this system. Focusing so much on grades and college brings in an enormous amount of stress that I can see is unnecessary, but I can’t help being anxious over anyway. Ever since I started high school, I’ve had people asking me if I wanted to shoot for Ivy League colleges or if I knew what SAT subject tests I wanted to take to make me look more appealing as a student, but all I really wanted to do was learn without stress. If I didn’t learn every subject with the tests and grades in mind, I would probably get an actual education. All the knowledge that I cram into my brain before exams , fly right out of my memory the second I exit the exam. The wave of relief that comes over me after a finished test washes away the knowledge along with the test anxiety.
Being constantly afraid of failing biology tests has made me hold an eternal vendetta towards biology. It isn’t the subject itself that I hate, it is the tests and grades that come along with it. Biology is actually a very interesting subject since it practically explains how all living things work, but since it is a mandated class I was not allowed to enjoy it. I begin to associate stress and anxiety with learning which only interferes with my education since it is much harder to learn under stress. When I study aspects of biology that I know I won’t be tested on I retain a lot more knowledge. I still remember that bunnies have pink ears because blood vessels in their ears will disseminate heat when they are cold because I knew that animal examples were not going to be on the test. It is ironic how I would probably be a lot more knowledgeable in biology if I hadn’t studied it in school. I really want school to be only about learning and becoming a well rounded person, but when a definitive number comes along to measure my efforts, it’s much harder to actually focus on my efforts rather than to focus on how I can receive the best results with the least effort.
Theory three is built around the idea that the advancing economy is pushing more people into the direction of vocational careers which can really be a two way street. As the economy grows, qualified graduates pursue high paying vocational careers due solely to the paycheck. People are likely to pursue a vocational career because they think it promises more financial stability and reward. They aren’t wrong to assume that a career that requires more skill and exists in a narrower field will promise them those things. The worth of an employee is similar to that of an appliance, people will pay more money for appliances with more functions or appliances that serve a very specific function. Since these appliances are very helpful people are also more dependent on them. Not only is the worth of a vocational employee higher, but because the vocational sector contains narrower fields there is also less competition. Aside from the extra amount of schooling required, vocational careers really do seem ideal. The growth of the vocational sector comes from these reasons and the fact that an advancing economy makes people value money more. As luxury becomes more and more appealing people become more inclined to make money to support a certain lifestyle. There are less people working out of passion for something and more people working for a paycheck. Being in my teenage years , people are constantly asking me what I want to do in the future and this struggle between money and dreams constantly appears. I would answer people in two parts, the first part goes like this , “If I lived in a world where money did not exist then I’d probably be a spontaneous writer who specializes in magic forests and dragons.” followed by , “Since money does exists I’d probably do something with market analysis since I kind of like math and research.” There is always a twinge of sadness in me after I’ve answered the question because I feel like I betrayed my persona as a creative individual to become a sustainable individual. That sadness will always lead me to question whether or not it is worth it to sustain a life I don’t really want to be living. This spiral of thoughts and questions will always end in me hoping that I will eventually become someone who can find the balance between dreams and money.
Another point brought up involving theory three is whether or not it is necessary for vocational students to master liberal arts. Menand follows the thought process of Professor X, who arrives to the conclusion that vocational students do not need to master liberal arts, because it isn’t necessary for their career. and according to Dr.X some of them will never understand certain fields such a writing unless they have been an avid reader. As someone who identifies as a liberal arts student more than a STEM student that also attends a very STEM focused school I disagree with this statement. Clearly, it is unnecessary for a vocational student to master the liberal arts, but it is not okay to ignore liberal arts. Liberal arts is constantly seen as the less intelligible and less significant sector which is not at all true. Students tend to undermine the subjects that are not their strengths and being in Stuy which is a STEM oriented school , liberal arts is always being taken lightly. This is increasingly frustrating because liberal arts are not easy subjects. Despite being someone who loves to write , writing is always going to be a painful process. Writing is a painful process because writing is difficult. Writing is about conveying empathy and empathy is hard to portray using only words. Words in a piece of literature are essentially just ink on paper until we use writing to give those words meaning. Writing this paper is difficult because I am trying to illustrate my feelings and present my thoughts in a way that will make the reader care. Not only is my goal to make the reader care as much as I do , but I have to achieve that goal in an orderly fashion because writing is also about articulation. It is agitating to see people undermine something that I love so much just because it isn’t necessarily their strength. If we all played to our strengths and only our strengths we would only become more ignorant and more narrow-minded. Allowing vocational students to “...have the option of flat-out vocational training instead.” is allowing people to continuously ignore liberal arts.

As a student writing this paper I am extremely worried that this will turn out to be a glorified rant against the injustices and problems that exists within the education system , but this paper has also made me realize that in order for education to be something that is effective and beneficial will require a radical change. The type of radical change that starts with a government shutdown for three years and an education hiatus. We tried to make education serve the same purpose to everyone when in fact we really need to let students decide for themselves what education is to them. Each person is different and each person deserves a unique education because this is the only way that students will end their academic career thinking it was worth the time. I understand that this is a very idealistic and unrealistic view , but science fiction novels that take place in futuristic dystopias have taught me that trying to make everyone the same or fit inside a designated sector never ends well.