Discussion questions about Mark Edmundson's essay.
In addition to thinking about these questions, you should also read your
classmates' observations about Edmundson and consider responding to some
of their ideas about this essay.
Why is Edmundson bothered by the evaluations? Note how his observations about this evaluation process provide the initial impetus for the entire essay.
ERIN: I think Edmundson is bothered by the evaluations because he feels that students are not reaching their full potential in the class that he is teaching. The students are writing answers such as "enjoyed" and "interesting", instead of describing what they got out of the course, and how they were enriched; how the course changed their way of thinking. I think this sets up the rest of the paper because Edmundson argues that students are not passionate about what they are learning. I think Edmundson wonders if they are learning anything at all, and if they care about what they are being taught.
AMANDA--I think that Edmundson doesn't like the class evaluations beacuse he knows that they aren't evaluating him on his teaching or the naterial they covered in the class. Edmundson knows that they remember the little jokes that he told to break the ice and the little comments he made to catch their attention. He knows that the students aren't doing a true evaluation and that bother him. From the very beginning Edmundson tells the truth about how he feels and that sets the whole mood for the article. The reader knows from the beginning that the isn't going to hold anything back. I noticed from the beginning that he was going to be talking baout things that aren't the most pleasant to hear, but are unfortunately true. For example, he started off saying that the kids are only going to remember his stupid little jokes. I can relate because I only remember the little things about my teachers instead of what they taought in class. Students only seem to remember things like whether the teacher was funny, graded easily, or whether ot not they were nice. Kids don't remember a teacher's lecture on a book, to them, that is irrelevant.
KIM: Edmundson is bothered by the students’ class assessment responses because they are assessing his ability to teach. The responses’ he receives are supposed to be flattering but ultimately are not when he is labeled having “knowledge, humorous detachment and bland tolerance.” Hr is offended by the students’ attitudes while writing such responses. He describes their attitudes as calm consumer expertise that pervades the responses.” Edmundson insists that his goals for teaching are not to amuse or divert, but he really wants a student to say they’ve been changed by the course. He wants students to “measure themselves against what they’ve read.” Edmundson is bothered by responses each semester because each response proved what he feared. The responses only acted as further truth to his belief that liberal arts education in “ineffective” and students are corrupted by a “cool consumer world view.”
DW: The evaluations also bring to mind the consumerist mind-set that Edmundson finds so disturbing.
What does Edmundson want from his students, precisely? Does he accuse them of being "bad" or "stupid"?
AMANDA --I don't think that Edmundson thinks that his students are "bad" or "stupid", I just think that he wants pupils who are passionate about the subject he teaches. Edmundson loves what he teaches, which is why he is a teacher. It bothers him that his students could pretty much care less about his class. I don't even think that he needs students who are deepely interested in his subject, but he does want them to show some effort and willingness to learn. I don't blame him, it wouldn't be the worst thing if the students humored him a little.
TARA: I think Edmundson is bothered
by the evaluations because his students
are more excited and focused on
evaluating him than their actual work during
the course. Also, the answers that
they give him saying that he is exciting
and makes learning fun upset him
because he wants the students to comment on
their actual education, what they
learned in his class. He wishes his
students had a passion about learning
and were excited to learn about what
he has to teach them.
ANNEMARIE: I believe that Professor Edmundson is looking for a response other than a laugh or happiness from his students. He has spent his teaching career trying to give his students an understanding of the concepts of Freud, for example. He obviously hopes to see that his students have come to understand and appreciate the material that he has covered in his courses. His students’ attitude towards the class, however, is just the opposite. Edmundson is disappointed to see that, at the end of the semester, his students can only remember the jokes that he used to introduce the difficult topics of the course.
KIM: Edmundson wants all of his students to be tangents of his ideal student Joon Lee. He talks of Joon Lee as if he were a god, instead of simply a student. Edmundson believes that there are a few remarkable students among the numerous average students. He contests that its not a lack of intelligence that separates Joon Lee and the likes from the rest of the students, but exceptional students have made the conscious decision to follow their interests; interests that will make them at odds with most everyone. So, no Edmundson does not accuse his students of being “bad” or “stupid” he comes right out and explains, “it is not that some aren’t nearly as bright, in terms of intellectual ability.” Edmundsons wishes all students had the same desire to learn as students like Joon Lee have.
DW: Edmundson would like his students to take more responsibility for their own learning rather than to wait for him to entertain them. For Edmundson the question isn't really about brains; it's more a question of attitude and priority, of whether his students will look inside themselves rather than solely to him to provide all the spark in the classroom.
Why does Edmundson say that "alas, I teach almost no students from truly poor backgrounds"? (41)
TARA: I think Edmunson says this
because, knowingly,
people from poor backgrounds are
not educated and therefore not prepared for
his class intellectually. And because
they are poorly educated, they would
have no passion for learning which
Edmundson craves from his students.
CHARLIE --College, especially the
University of Virginia (Edmundson's school), is
very expensive. Without scholarships,
poor students have almost no hope of
affording tuition. That means that
only the most brilliant of poor students
make it to college, and many talented
and deserving students are left behind
merely because of a lack of funds.
RICKY: I feel that Edmundson includes this as part of his essay to strengthen his argument that tv and the movies are corrupting students and making them less intelligent. By stating that he teaches no "truly poor students," Edmundson is implying that the families that his students come from are all pretty well off. Therefore, they most likely at least one tv set and the money to go to the movies. Thus, by saying this near the beginning of the essay, Edmundson is laying the groundwork for his argument about the consumer generation. This statement may also be implying that some of his students have been spoiled their whole life by their parents. Therefore, they have no motivation to work because they never had to. They don't see failing as a bad thing because mommy and daddy will be there to make everything ok. This also goes along with one of his main arguments throughout the essay about the attitudes of most students these days.
DW: This comment of Edmundson also highlights the homogenous student body of UVA. If all the students are more-or-less the same, demographically, there will be a corresponding lack of perspectives in the classroom. Most of the students will be coming "from the same place," as it were, despite surface differences. Keep this comment in mind when you read the essay by Earl Shorris, who writes about a very, very different classroom experience and a very different set of students.
Edmundson quotes Horace as saying: "To stand in awe
of nothing, Numicus, is perhaps the one and only thing that can make a
man happy and keep him so" (42). What does this mean, and how does
Edmundson use this comment to further his own argument?
ERIN: I think Edmundson chose this
quote because he wished students would be in awe of what they
learned. He wants students to crave knowledge. He feels students
are not getting the most out of what they are being taught. This
quote shows his true feelings.
DW: When I first typed this quote, I left out the important phrase. SORRY. Note that what it says is that being in awe of nothing will keep you happy. Think about that. Doesn't this suggest the same sort of "whatever" attitude that Edmundson sees in his students? Nothing shocks them, nothing excites them, nothing amazes them. If nothing awes you, there isn't anything to strive for--and thus very little dissatisfaction with one's current status....
How does Edmundson try to defend against the accusation that he is just a cranky old professor? Or does he not care about being thought to be a cranky old professor?
NICK --I don't think he cares. And
if he does, he shouldn't becasue that would be
a counter-argument. If he wants
students who don't care what other people
think, he should be a teacher who
doesn't care--of course he must to some
degree because he is willing to
teach in an "entertaining" style to please
his students which is one of his
biggest complaints.
DW: One of the things that Edmundson does is point to some of the flaws of his own generation--he takes some responsibilty for the situation as it exists currently. He also decides, toward the end of the essay, that he doesn't care if he is regarded as a cranky old professor--he is going to stand around and wave his arms and get excited...
Edmundson argues that today's students--and much of contemporary culture, generally--have the attitude that "if you step aside for a moment, to write, to travel, to fall too hard in love, you might lose position permanently. We may be on a conveyor belt, but it's worse down there on the filth-strewn floor. So don't sound off, don't blow your chance" (43). Do you agree with this idea?
MONICA: I definetely agree with this idea. I think that is sad and unfortunate that society has taken on this mentality, but it has. I know that it is almost set in stone that those who want to be successful must stay on the educational path and never stray. From the very beginning of high school, students are threatened with ideas like "that will look so bad on college applications" and "you'll never get into a good college with grades like that." In college, it turns into "you'll never get into a good grad schoo lwith grades like this" etc... Basically, for those who want to "succeed" in today's world, life is turned into a very narrow one-way street. The only way to move is forward. While this might make sense to many, I have always been a strong believer in the idea that the main parts of your life will always be the mistakes that you make as you go through each day. Why call it "your life" if you are just basically walking along the same generic path that is being followed by millions of others who have be en brain-washed with the idea that life is only "good" once you have achieved a certain status? Maybe it takes some time on the "filth-strewn floor" to fully appreciate the conveyor belt and where it will bring you.
AVIVA: I can’t say that I agree with the idea that leaving college to pursue other interests is ultimately a poor decision. Like Edmundson, I tend to be an idealist. If you’re going to do something, you should do it because it is your passion. Maybe that means taking time off to travel the world, or straighten out personal issues. Unfortunately, we live in a society where money becomes a deciding factor in most situations. Most people simply can’t afford to not go to college (an ironic statement considering the cost of tuition these days). Almost every career path requires at least an undergraduate degree. Without a college education it is very hard find financial security. I don’t think that Edmundson is ignoring this completely, but like a true idealist, he is reluctant to acknowledge reality.
ROB: I thought long and hard about this quote. I have actually felt this way since about junior year. For the longest time I have wanted to join the Marine Corps. I felt that it would give me the chance to see the entire world and also the opportunity to learn about many interesting things. The sole reason why I did not join the marines is illustrated by Edmundson’s quote. I thought that if I stepped aside to experience something I wanted to do(the marines) I would lose my place and not be able to recover. The marine corps is not the most lucrative of profession and if I joined I thought by the time I got out it would be to late to go to college. Hence, I would lose my economic and educational places in the world.
NICK: --
I do agree with this statement. I think that our generation has been
brought up with this concept of
a "process" that anyone who wants to be
successful must go through. Granted,
there are diferent processes for
different lifestyles--a different
process to be a carpenter than a
lawyer--but there is the inferred
idea that if you step outside of the
process that you will not be successful
because you will fall out of the
loop. There are many things that
I would like to do , but I'm afraid that if
I do that I will miss out on something.
KEVIN: Yes, it seems that conformity has forever been part of society not just recently. I guess this is most firmly demonstrated in The Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man.
DEIRDRE: I agree that this seems to be what's happening to people and students today, athough its not true for all. I know that there are people my age who go off on adventures, follow their heart's desire but now the drive to succeed prevents most from doing things like that. I may even cite myself as an example. The drive to succeed has made me be an honors student, but ever since I was little I've dreamed about getting a pilot's lisence. However it is because of the society we live in that people with ideas like mine dont follow through. The expectations placed on people, from what i can tell only box people in rather that give them wings. people think you can do anything with a college degree but that's not always the case. its not neccessarily what he is saying is true, but what Edmundson is saying about people's ideas are true. people dont want to take risks, they are afraid they will lose it all, but i dont agree that they will. anything truely is possible and for people to feign happiness in lives so ciety has trapped them in is ridiculous.
If colleges are treating students like consumers, then it would stand to reason that the "product" being marketed is an education. Is an "education" the same thing as "learning" or "knowledge"? Should education or learning or knowledge be seen as a product? Are there flaws in that equation?
KEVIN: No, education is the knowledge of information and facts as opposed to knowledge, which is a combination between book knowledge and knowledge of the world. Should education or learning or knowledge be seen as a product? I assume it should. A person with a degree from Oxford deserves to flaunt the title for that it shows the ability of the individual to persevere and his/her determination. In that sense it is a product and a representation of the individual. On the other hand some people might work their butts off to get a community college degree, so I guess my stance is a little lopsided and incorrect. Oh well. Are there flaws in that equation? Yep, just look at my last response.
DEIRDRE: I think that gaining knowlegde is more important than an education so no they are not the same thing. Knowledge can be obtained in every way possible, an education is recieved at school. Education is forced on you even if you dont want it, knowledge can be too, but you never forget knowledge, while you could forget everything from yur education. Education as a product? well whether we want it or not education is a product, and its a product people are willing to pay for, other wise school tuition would not be as high, presumably. every one should have the right to knowledge but everyone possesses knowledge so that cant be sold if everyone already has it.
TIM: I agree with Edmundson that
colleges are treating students like consumers.
As an employee of the Admissions
Office, I have often thought of that office
as having nothing more than a marketing
and public relations function.
Colleges are indeed trying to outdo
each other in completely non-academic
ways to attract the most and the
best students. Some of the academic
facilities on campus are showing
signs of disrepair, notably Walsh Hall and
the departmental offices. Yet in
the college's "Master Plan" there millions
of dollars being spent on student
athletic facilities, housing, and a student
union. Undoubtedly Iona is not
the only college undergoing such a scenario.
It seems like college life, rather
than education, is the main product being
advertised.
"Education" is difficult to define
in the light of the current situation in
American colleges and universities.
Perhaps the ideal education would include
an expansion of knowledge in a
broad range of subjects combined with
specialized study in a field of
career interest. "Knowledge" could thus be
considered the goal of an eduacation
and "learning" would be the process by
which this happens. Clearly, the
situation of students doing as little as
possible for grades can't be considered
learning, thereby breaking up the
whole equation. In terms of marketing
these ideas as products, colleges might
ideally focus on them in their
attmepts to attract students.
DW: I wonder if this consumer-product isn't slightly dangerous. As a metaphor it strikes me as putting students in the position of being fairly passive: they need only accept or reject the product, but don't really need to do any more than that. And it puts the professor--me, that is to say--in the position of a burger salesman or something like that. I'm not sure that learning can be--or should be--measured in quantifiable terms. What equals two thousand dollars of English, for instance? What quantity of math are you learning this semester? How much is a cup of history? I exaggerate slightly, of course, but if that metaphor remains in place, how should we deal with it? A thought is a product of the brain, true, but how would we define that sort of product? We have all decided to use grades as a measurement, but as we all know, grading is a flawed process and an inexact science.
What does Edmundson mean when he says that his students "lack the confidence to acknowledge what would be their most precious asset for learning: their ignorance"? (47) Do you agree that ignorance can be a "precious asset"? How so, if so? How does this comment connect to the passage he quotes from Horace, mentioned earlier?
CORRIE: I think that Edmundson makes a valid point about ignorance being an asset to college students. If it weren’t for ignorance, there would be no point in going to college. It would be useless for me to take an accounting course if I already knew all there was to know about it. The same goes for all subjects. In order for leaning to be valuable, you have to start out ignorant.
DW: Ignorance can also help us to stand in awe, I think. Of course, knowledge can also create awe. One of the things I realized as I finished my doctorate was how truly little I knew--how much more there was to know that I might never, ever, be able to get to. A daunting thought, but an important one, I think. Edmunson's comment also connects, I think, to what many of you have said: that it's embarassing to be the one who "doesn't know," to be the only person who has a question, or who is confused about something. No one wants to "look stupid," although generally I think professors see students who ask questions as the students are more engaged in the process than those who just sit. Paradoxically it does take confidence, I think, to say "whaddaya mean?" or "say that again."
What was your reaction to the definition of liberal arts that Edmundson offers at the bottom of 48? How does this definition challenge the atmosphere that Edmundson sees on today's college campuses?
DEIRDRE: I like Edmundson's definition of liberal arts.. or at least what it once was. the purpose being, if i got this right, to become the best you there can be. it enables us to become the people we were meant to be, unrestrained by the bonds of ignorance and inexperience. Edmundsons portrayal of campuses today goes against the idea of challenging people to become themselves, rather than a member of the droves of identical people walking the streets. Blending in isnt really an option in this definition because everyone is unique so being yurself means being like no one else.
DW: Edmundson's definition, which he borrows from historian Walter Jackson Bate, is pretty powerful--and idealistic--stuff. Makes me wonder what would happen if more people had that definition of liberal arts in mind when they came to college--or as teachers at liberal arts college.
Edmundson's essay culminates in a discussion of "genius." Why? What does "genius" signify to him? Why is it important?
CHARLIE --Genius represents the
best intellect that humanity has to offer. The study
of genius is the best way to enhance
our own intelligence, just like a
basketball player studies the moves
of the pros to make his own game better.
Also, the promotion of genius is
vital to the intellectual survival of a
society. Unfortunately, our culture
disparages genius by making the
expression of intelligence "uncool."
DW: Edmundson also uses genius to signify passion and energy and commitment, all those things he has found lacking elsewhere. Genius, for Edmundson, also connects to that idea of the liberal arts that he mentions later. Genius is "extraordinary" and makes us multidimensional. I'm not sure that he's saying we should all try to be geniuses so much as he is urging us out of the merely"hip" and into a broader range of experiences.
Think about the structure of this essay: how does Edmundson balance stories and anecdotes with other, more abstract or conceptual arguments? How does he use anecdotes and stories?
DW: This essay is a good example of how to combine "showing" and "telling." The specific examples of classroom experiences, student stories, and so forth help to illustrate Edmundson's larger concepts about consumerism, idealism, liberal arts, and educational philosophy. Without his stories, readers--particularly students--would find it difficult to get as engaged with the essay, I think. The essay was also first published in Harper's Magazine, which is a general interest magazine. Edmundson thus had to appeal to a wide range of readers--many of whom, I suspect, are long past college-age and may in fact be paying tuitions for their children.
Did his essay reveal any "behind-the-scenes" ideas about teaching or about colleges that were surprising to you?
AMANDA --Reading Edmundson's report was a little shocking to me in that he knew that kids don't really love learning and he still wants to teach. If I were him, I would feel extremely unappreciated and would even consider a change in careers. I wouldn't want to work with people who don't show any interest in what I am doing. I also found it funny how Edmundson knew that the only part of his lessons that the kids remember are the unimportant jokes that he uses to get their attention. After reading his article, I feel a little sorry for teachers because they are really taken for granted. They have to teach whether or not their pupils are interested in the class or not. It must be a frustrating job trying to get kids' attention who don't really care about school.
ERIN: I never thought that teachers may be turned off by students who are not quick to participate. I used to be so shy in class, and never said anything, but I never thought teachers might look down on me because of this. I am passionate about a lot of things, I just sometimes don't want to share my thoughts in class.
DW: I don't think Edmundson "looks down" on students who don't participate. There are lots of ways to demonstrate that one is passionate about a subject or an idea other than merely class participation. His essay merely urges us all to think about our own responsibilities in the classroom--and here I am extending "classroom" to mean all the related activities of being a class, including homework, studying, writing, coming to a professor's office hours, etc.
CHARLIE--I
didn't understand that if Edmundson was so disgusted by the culture that
shaped his students' minds,
and if he thought his efforts were wasted when
he didn't get the reaction out
of them that he wanted, then why does he
continue teaching?
ROB: I thought that it was interesting how Edmundson describes the “cut throat” world of getting students to sign up for his classes. I didn’t know that teachers were so concerned about how the students felt or talked about their classes, especially in college.
NICK: --I was surprised that teachers
actually talk about students in college--I
thought that was a high school
thing. I don't mind, but I think that it's
interesting.
NICK: --I thought that it was interesting
that nearly all of the students in the
class agreed that the problems
that Edmundson points out were valid, but
that we nearly all disagreed on
what should be done or if the problems were
viewed in the right light.