Today, Colleges and Universities are turning into the five-star companies. Think if these institutions of higher learning get their big factors in world to promote the knowledge they can give. Using their institution name and history as the brand that you want next to your name. Then reality hits you with the bill of service the institution has change you. So, the nature of institutions are turning into corporate: by producing leaders and workers and advertising production numbers to increase student admissions.
Let’s look at one evidence show the production of leaders. In “The Disadvantages of an Elite Education” author William Deresiewicz discusses the symbolism that Al Gore and John Kerry as an example of elite education: “Witness the last two Democratic presidential nominees, Al Gore and John Kerry: one each from Harvard and Yale,
…show more content…
In “The Day the Purpose of College Changed” senior reporter Dan Berrett discusses the ideal of liberal education: “College is a vehicle for intellectual development, for cultivating a flexible mind, and, no matter the focus of study, for fostering a broad set of knowledge and skills whose values is not always immediately apparent.” (65) College is a tool for higher education development of the world, to prepare for ready and able to change to adapt to different circumstances, and no matter the center of interest of study, “for fostering a broad set of knowledge and skills whose values is not always immediately apparent.” College is promoting the development of wide scope of subjects or areas of knowledge and skills that values are not always without any intervening time or space clearly visible. Berrett is showing how college is a tool that supposed to develop a around knowledge real would. College is promoting education as if you learn essential values but really skilling in one area. College can basically take your money and train your skills for working
One of the evidence that I found worthy of consideration in Zinsser's text is that "In the late 1960s", "the typical question that I got from students was 'Why is there so much suffering in the world?' or "How can I make a contribution?' Today it's 'Do you think it would look better for getting into law school if I did a double major in history and political science, or just majored in one of them?" (Zinsser 197) This evidence shows that the views on college education is transient and can be changed. At the same time it gives us an idea of what kind of college education Zinsser favors. Real purpose of a college education should not be forced by career or parental influences but by personal choices especially by taking classes in the fields of liberal arts.
In "Becoming a Real Person", Davis Brooks weighs on the notion of the purpose of college. He claims that there are three ways that college aims to lead us. The cognitive objective teaches us knowledge and how to correctly use it, the moral role helps us build a unique individual self, and the commercial role leads us toward a future career. These three roles play a part in improving an individual's future prospects. While I agree on the importance these roles take, Brooks undermines the significance of moral education in higher education.
Have you ever read something and thought “What a bunch of crap”? Well that’s the reaction I had to reading Fareed Zakaria’s book, In Defense Of a Liberal Education. Over the course of the book, Zakaria makes the argument that attending college with the specific intention to get trained for a job is “Short sighted and needlessly limiting”. Zakaria also breaks down the differences between the United State’s education system with other countries across the globe. By attending college with the intention of receiving critical thinking skills and being able to express our ideas, rather than just going to train for a job, Zakaria believes that the average student would be much better off in the world after they graduate.
Mark Edmundson’s essay really resonated with me. His essay “On the Uses of a Liberal Education,” explains that at Universities, college students and teachers who are at these universities, focus on how much the students like the classes, rather than the information found in the class. For example, he explains this when mentions giving his students the course evaluations. Some of the comments were, “the teacher was interesting”, or, “he was funny”. Not one student commented on the information they got in the class. He describes how students have become like customers. The teachers accommodate them and are willing to do anything that meet their needs. This is consumerism. Colleges are concerned with attracting the wealthiest
We’ve all heard the saying “one size fits all,” but when it comes to our education should one size really fit all (Allitt 3612)? Patrick Allitt, a professor of history at Emory University in Atlanta wrote the essay “Should Undergraduates Specialize?” published in 2006 in the Chronicle of Higher Education, he argues that American colleges should give students the chance to choose between a liberal arts education or one that is more specialized to those who want it. Allitt provides an effective argument by building his credibility with personal experiences and feelings, different viewpoints of the argument, and explaining the advantages and disadvantages between the two different
In the article “The New Liberal Arts,” Sanford J. Ungar presents the argument of why liberal arts schools are still competitive and useful today. The beginning of the article immediately addresses the problem that Ungar is defending, “Hard economic times inevitably bring scrutiny of all accepted ideals and institutions, and this time around liberal-arts education has been especially hit hard.” The author provides credibility through his time of being a liberal arts presidents, applies statistics about the enrollment and job security outside of liberal college, he addresses the cost factor and how a student may find compensation, and that a liberal arts college is not preparing students for success. The article “The New Liberal Arts,” addresses
Louis Menand, a professor of English and American literature at Harvard University presented three different theories for higher education in an article for The New Yorker named, Live and Learn: Why We Have College. Menand (2011) claims that the reasons for college are meritocratic, democratic, and vocational. These theories are great models for the purpose of higher education in our culture, at different points in our history. As a nation, there are definite intentions behind the way that instruction is conducted in our colleges and universities. The techniques adopted by institutions of higher education are no mistake and they are designed to serve a purpose. These methods evolve with time and shape the way that generations think and reason. In our generation, the purpose of higher education in our culture is to sustain the nation atop of the worldwide economy.
In the past several years, there has been a growing trend in the number of college-bound individuals getting two-year degrees from community colleges or earning certification for their desired career field at vocational schools. Such schools certainly seem to have some valuable qualities: all boast of having lower costs than other colleges, of their absence of student loans, of allowing people to make more money quicker, of being narrowly focused so students don’t have to take classes they don’t need. They attempt to point out apparent weaknesses in liberal arts colleges as well, claiming that such an education is unnecessary in today’s world. However, for every reason to go to a community or two-year college, a vocational track, or an apprenticeship, there is another, stronger reason for going to a traditional, four-year college, and the liberal arts degree gained at four year colleges far outstrips the degree gained at a two year school or through a vocational track.
In recent years, many have debated whether or not a college education is a necessary requirement to succeed in the field of a persons’ choice and become an outstanding person in society. On one hand, some say college is very important because one must contribute to society. The essay Three Reasons College Still Matters by Andrew Delbanco shows three main reasons that students should receive their bachelor’s degree. On the other hand, many question the point of wasting millions of dollars on four years or maybe more to fight for highly competitive jobs that one might not get. Louis Menand wrote an article based on education titled Re-Imagining Liberal Education. This article challenges the main thought many americans have after receiving a secondary education. Louis Menand better illustrates the reasons why a student should rethink receiving a post secondary education better than Andrew Delbanco’s three reasons to continue a person’s education.
College is a popular topic for most, and Sanford J. Ungar and Charles Murray have a unique way of explaining both their opinions. In his essay, “The New Liberal Arts,” Sanford J. Ungar advocates that the liberal arts should be everybody’s education, regardless of the fact that most Americans are facing economic hardship. The first misconception that he begins to explain is “a liberal arts degree is a luxury that most families can no longer afford”. Career education” is what we now must focus on.”
We live the truth every day, working to keep the ideal of democratic education alive. The best reason to care for college, who goes,and what happens to them when they get there, is not what it does for society, but what it can do for individuals.like the elder guy said, you thought me how to enjoy life. What he meant is college helped him read, help him crave for works of art, heightened his alertness to color from melody. He was grateful for such an education given to him. As a person regardless of what kind of origin we have, we have the right to pursue happiness. In america today at every kind of institution education is at risk. Student are persuade and program, trained to live from task to task. To many colleges do to little to save them debilitating frenzy that makes liberal education marginal if it is offered at
It is Addison’s belief that one enters the college experience as a rookie (Addison 213). This theory contradicts Murray’s thought that not every person would benefit from a college-level liberal education. Addison also believes that ...
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.
In Charles Murray’s essay entitled “Are Too Many People Going to College?”, he discusses the influx of Americans getting a college education. He addresses the topic of Liberal Arts education, and explains that not many people are ready for the rigorous challenges a liberal-arts degree offers. In addition, Murray explains that instead of a traditional degree more people should apply to technical schools. He believes that college should not be wide spread, and that it is only for those who can handle it. These viewpoints harshly contrast with Sanford J. Ungar’s views. Ungar believes college education should be widespread, because a liberal-arts degree is, in his opinion, a necessity. He argues that a liberal-arts college is the only place that
A college education gives a person the opportunity to be successful in life, either financially or morally dependent on the goals that they set for their life. They will choose a college that offer programs for the major of their choice, where they will specialize and receive a degree. The decision to pursue a higher education will give the opportunity to earn a better income over someone who does not have a degree. College is more of life preparation course that will help make sure a successful career. If a person pursues a career in engineering, physics or mathematics their curriculum would include more liberal art preparation courses, in order for them to earn their degree, so someone pursuing a degree in these types of careers are attending college for job preparation. On December 10, 2009 at Hamilton University in Clinton, New York, college professors debated current college curriculum (Liew). They talked about how their college could make a leap from being good to being great. At the 22nd American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges conference held in Long Beach California on November 14, 1996 the topic of changing curriculum was discussed (“Mich”). The University of Louisiana, Lafayette, is eliminating its philosophy major, while Michigan State University is doing away with American studies and classics, after years of decline in enrollments in those majors (Zernike). The purpose of a college education is to meet the student's liberal art’s needs so that they can compete and understand the connection between a degree and a job that will enable them to compete with other world economies, give them a well-rounded education that will enable them to earn a higher income, and retain a lifetime full of knowledge.