A controversial debate has been at hand for several years. Many view education as learning from your outside surroundings and gaining information through first-hand contact. Knowing information is one aspect, but the ability to apply the knowledge is another. In "How To Get a Real Education," Scott Adams argues that students should choose courses that are practical to daily life and therefore should not have to sit through the monotonous classes taught today. According to Adams, if someone is not "book smart," they should not have to sit through the same courses as those heading for that 4.0 GPA; it is a waste of time. While having "street smarts" is a crucial component to surviving in society, the same can be said of "book smarts." His outline …show more content…
for the ideal education is flawed because school carries many other benefits not listed in his essay. Adams uses techniques that discredit the argument trying to be made. From his sarcastic tone to the number of verbal fallacies used, his theme of finding his/her passion is blurred by these unprofessional strategies. Sarcasm, Sarcasm, Sarcasm. This seems to be the premise behind his writing. In the first paragraph, he expresses that making a "B" student sit through classes that they are not interested in is similar to attempting to train your cat to do your taxes (98). Although this paints a vivid picture, it is not appropriate for an introductory statement. It sets a sarcastic tone that carries through the duration of the essay. "I thought I could make a difference, so I applied for an opening as the so-called Minister of Finance. I landed the job, thanks to my impressive interviewing skills, my can-do attitude and the fact that everyone else in the solar system had more interesting plans" (98). When trying to convince the audience of his purpose, building the foundation of credibility is crucial. If his idea of an effective argument is to joke about the subject, he is narrowing his audience to a small pool of readers. First, he puts down his peers by stating that they are taking classes in art history, in case anyone asked them what art looked like (98). After this point, if Adams still has a number interested in the subject, he then makes the harsh generalization that the "brainy group" (98) does not apply to this essay because they will be the future "professors, scientists, thinkers, and engineers" (98), not the entrepreneurs he is trying to target. Due to his sarcastic tone and put-downs, he leaves the reader unengaged. Although he is known for his humorous comic strips, he carries that sarcastic tone into "How To Get a Real Education" and it is not appropriate for this context. A verbal fallacy, as defined by Webster's Dictionary, is an unsound reasoning and the use of ambiguous word choice that violates the proper use of language in an argument.
Scott Adams fills his essay full of verbal fallacies that take away from his initial theme of finding his/her passion. These two quotes use the fallacy of the "straw man argument." “That was the year I learned everything I know about management,” and, “That was the year I learned everything I know about getting buy-in” (99). He is trying to prove the argument that all his education/learning experiences came from practical knowledge. This over exaggeration and overstatement takes away from his argument. It cannot be validated because school is proven to build character and hard-work ethics ("EdLab"). Due to his assumptions, his credibility is under question. Next, he uses “hasty generalizations” in the opening sentence by saying, “I understand why the top students in America study physics, chemistry, calculus and classic literature” (98). Through inductive generalizations, he rushes to a conclusion that all top students study in a certain field, which is a false statement. Along with verbal fallacies, Adams carries a bias throughout the essay. He says, "That's my starter list that would serve B students well" (101). While yes, the information can aid the "B" students to become more successful, it can pertain to anyone with any grade. His use of these segregating statements narrows the window of his audience …show more content…
and is off-putting to those who do not see "eye to eye" on this generalization. The abundance of verbal fallacies and a harsh bias lead to the demise of this essay. The title "How To Get a Real Education" implies a resolution to the education system as we know it.
However, after concluding the essay, it is clear that the title is misleading. From the first paragraph, it is gathered that the essay's theme is to teach "B" students to find their niche and pursue their goals. He builds on this idea momentarily by speaking about his journey to discovering his love of entrepreneurship and the college that molded his experiences. For all that, this is where the fluency in his essay "hits a brick wall." Adams goes on tangents about how he manipulates "the system" as an entrepreneur. He hatches a plan to become the student manager of their dorm and be paid for his services. Finding a "loophole" in the system, he is successful in his scheme to fire all of the professional staff (99). He gives a false theme that his success comes from deceitfulness, not from finding his passion. "That's the year I learned that if there's a loophole, someone's going to drive a truck through it, and the people in the truck will get paid better than the people under it" (99). He uses this strategy of finding a "loophole" to gain success, and covers up the manipulative tactic by calling it "entrepreneurship." Is this an appropriate lesson to pinpoint in an essay titled "How To Get a Real Education"? He concludes by saying, "Remember, children are our future, and the majority of them are B students. If that doesn't scare you, it probably should" (101). First off, this
statement is not relevant to either theme he is trying to get across, nor is it beneficial to his audience. One of Adam's themes is to try and teach the "B" students how to be successful, but then he rebuts the same people who are reading this for an educational purpose. From the scattered theme to the once again narrowed audience, his essay lacks the focus to persuade and an audience to listen. Former comic strip writer, Scott Adams, attempts to create a unified essay as he recounts his journey in "How To Get a Real Education." Unfortunately, the unprofessional tone, fallacies, and biases, along with the lack of a strong thesis, take away from the ideas he is trying to present. It is understood that there is no perfect solution to accommodate everyone in the school system because if the goal is to please everyone, no one will be pleased. While Adams is correct in saying a hands-on education is beneficial, the approach he takes to convey this message ultimately takes away from his point and leaves the writer scattered in his/her own thoughts. His writing techniques are an "acquired taste," and therefore, is unsuccessful on the marks of an educational read by using an informal style.
(Owen and Sawhill 208) After all, if our country’s leader is preaching about college being a good thing, it should reflect the views of a majority of people in this country. They then continue to try to make connections with the audience by emphasizing that this is a “we” problem and by recognizing that the decision to go off to college is not an easy one for everybody. These first words in the essay demonstrate a call to the ethos of President Obama and clear cut pathos to bring the authors down to the same level as their audience; However, the rest of the essay is absolutely dominated by
“We want to emphasize that the personal characteristics and skills of each individual are equally important”. (Page #221, para #3) Owen and Sawhill are inquiring that to be successful in any major requires dedication and personal motivation, which is another example of the authors bringing pathos into their argument. Owen and Sawhill state that “if they don’t just enroll but graduate, they can improve their lifetime prospects”. (page #220, para #1) Owens and Sawhill statement is taken as, applying with great intensions is not good enough to be successful in college. Owen and Sawhill are completely open about the fact that college isn’t for everyone and that’s perfectly acceptable. “It may be that for a student with poor grades who is on the fence about enrolling in a four-year program, the most bang-for-the-buck will come from vocationally-oriented associate’s degree or career-specific technical training”. (Page #222, para #1) this statement opens the argument to be about both, is college worth it financially, and also academically. Owens and Sawhill want their reader to understand that, being pushed to achieve something that you have no passion for attaining, only robs someone of their true
The journey begins at the heart of the matter, with a street smart kid failing in school. This is done to establish some common ground with his intended audience, educators. Since Graff is an educator himself, an English professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago, he understands the frustrations of having a student “who is so intelligent about so many things in life [and yet] seems unable to apply that intelligence to academic work” (380). Furthermore, Graff blames schools for not utilizing street smarts as a tool to help improve academics; mainly due to an assumption that some subjects are more inherently intellectual than others. Graff then logically points out a lack of connection “between any text or subject and the educational depth and weight of the discussion it can generate” (381). He exemplifies this point by suggesting that any real intellectual could provoke thoughtful questions from any subject, while a buffoon can render the most robust subjects bland. Thus, he is effectively using logic and emotion to imply that educators should be able to approach any subject critically, even non-traditional subjects, lest they risk being labeled a buffoon.
In “Life is Not Measured by Grade-Point Averages” by H. Bruce Miller, Miller announces that a young lady named Gabrielle Napolitano was suing the University for accusing her of plagiarism in her paper. Napolitano hired a lawyer and built the case stating that the so called “plagiarism” was just a, quote “technical error” (Miller, par.2). Miller announces this problem but doesn’t get his true argument out until the last few paragraphs of his paper, stating that students need to stop worrying about their grades or grade-point averages and need to start enjoying the process of learning, to embrace the knowledge and use it without the fear of lack of money in the back of their minds. Miller uses strong terminology throughout his paper and keeps the paper at a fast-pace to retrieve the audiences full attention and to also keep it until the end, he also uses antonomasia to refer back to his university, making his style of writing very entertaining; however, Miller fails to accept Napolitano’s feelings about the problems at hand and makes a huge assumption that she is only concentrated on her grade-point average, fails to appeal to his audiences beliefs, and includes inappropriate fallacies in his paper. Even though Miller has weaknesses in his paper, he did a good job using the proper style in his paper to keep the reader’s attention and to get his argument that people need to enjoy learning and not just be in it for the money across.
A philosopher once said ”A child educated only at school is an uneducated child”. As we are living in a world where everyone knows the importance of schools and the meaningful of being educated, then why does he believe that a child is illiterate when he only studies at school? Are schools actually limit on areas of study and overlook the essential of real life experience? In the article “Hidden Intellectualism”, Gerald Graff claims that schools and colleges are might at fault due to their omission of the “street smarts”-knowledge necessary to deal with reality-, and their failure to invest them into academic work. By stating the fundamental of intellectualism and the influence of personal interests, he informs readers that those street smarts,
...a career to something that guarantees a successful life. This negative light gives many student the ugly side of college that maybe it isn't as good as it sounds. The function of the essay to deter students from becoming like sheep and following social norms, Murray wants students to become informed before making decisions that can change the outcome of their life for many years.
bell hooks’s essay, "Keeping Close to Home", uses three important components of argument (ethos, pathos, and logos) to support her claim. hooks develops her essay by establishing credibility with her audience, appealing to the reader’s logic, and stirring their emotions. She questions the role a university should play in the life of a nation, claiming that higher education should not tear a student away from his roots, but help him to build an education upon his background.
In “Hidden Intellectualism”, author and professor Gerald Graff describes his idea of what book smarts and streets smarts actually are. He details how new ideas can help to teach and build our educational system into something great and that perhaps street smarts students could be the factor that traditional education is missing that could make it great.
When the department of admissions assessed whether or not Oher will be able to succeed as a student of Wingate Christian School, they find out that his GPA is .6, and he has an IQ of 80. Oher ranked where he did because he did not have the opportunity to go to school or to stimulate his education in any other way. He often wanted to just leave and gave up easily. Ways that Oher could develop his comprehension and reading skills would be to go to school, visit a library, or get a tutor. If he would take the time to learn and open a textbook, he would be able to go farther in his
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.
‘“It’s not that it makes you more intelligent,” says Phoebe, a history student. “It’s just that it helps you work. You can study for longer. You don’t get distracted. You’re actually happy to go to the library and you don’t even want to stop for lunch. And then it’s like 7pm, and you’re still, ‘Actually, you know what? I could do another hour.’” (Cadwalladr)
Miller closed her argument encourages putting first-generation student in the spotlight. Instead of focusing all of the country resources on students who already have it easy, we need to use it and make it affordable to attract more first-generation students. Miller last sentence reminds the reader of the story she opened her argument with, creating a nice circle for the reader to connect things. In this way Miller will not lose her follower. “We need to want the son of Beth’s friend to succeed as much as his mother does, for his own, his children’s, and our sakes”
Street smart students are much smarter than book smart students because of their knowledge and experiences. Author states in the article “I believe that street smarts beat out book smarts in our culture not because street smarts are nonintellectual, as we generally suppose, but because they satisfy an intellectual thirst more thoroughly than school culture, which seems pale and unreal,” which means that street smart students are smarter than book smart students because of their vast amount of information about many things and previous experiences. Author is right about his point that street smart students get more out of their mistakes and learn more from their previous experiences. According to author, street smart students always try to learn from their mistakes where book smart students rely on the books and information from the studies. Book smart students never try to experience the situation of an issue, which gives them biased information and they don’t learn much, where street smart students experience the situation of an issue and learn much more than book smarts. Book smart students are also smart because they learn a lot of information from books and readings also they know how to use that information properly to succeed in academic area, but these students learn very much less from their mistakes and previous experiences to succeed, than street smart students.
The film stated that only certain aspects of a subject are selected to teach because they are either useful to the teacher or they could cause trouble in the classroom. Education either frees the mind and allows you to think for yourself or it controls the mind. I believe the purposes of education is not only to teach the common subjects of math, english, science, and history, but also to teach students about issues in our world and about life in general and how to grow individually as a person. Teachers should be encouraging students to have their own opinions on matters and should also be teaching and introducing other skills. Society teaches that in order for anyone to be successful and have any social power, you have a proper education and to further after high school. People tend to look up and respect someone based on the highest level of education they achieve and the professional career they hold. Conversely, we tend to look down and have no respect for others who did not get a college education and simply have a technical or trade job. Personally, I disagree with this view. College is not for everyone and unlike the school system misleads you to believe, you can succeed even if you choose not to pursue a college education. Everyone has their own standards and level at where they are content with their
Co-author of “They Say/I Say” handbook, Gerald Graff, analyzes in his essay “Hidden Intellectualism” that “street smarts” can be used for more efficient learning and can be a valuable tool to train students to “get hooked on reading and writing” (Graff 204). Graff’s purpose is to portray to his audience that knowing more about cars, TV, fashion, and etc. than “academic work” is not the detriment to the learning process that colleges and schools can see it to be (198). This knowledge can be an important teaching assistant and can facilitate the grasping of new concepts and help to prepare students to expand their interests and write with better quality in the future. Graff clarifies his reasoning by indicating, “Give me the student anytime who writes a sharply argued, sociologically acute analysis of an issue in Source over the student who writes a life-less explication of Hamlet or Socrates’ Apology” (205). Graff adopts a jovial tone to lure in his readers and describe how this overlooked intelligence can spark a passion in students to become interested in formal and academic topics. He uses ethos, pathos, and logos to establish his credibility, appeal emotionally to his readers, and appeal to logic by makes claims, providing evidence, and backing his statements up with reasoning.