Responses to Mark Edmundson's essay, "On the Uses of a Liberal Arts Education: As Lite Entertainment for Bored College Students"
Discussion Questions for Edmundson
DEIRDRE: If students are consumers and college
admissions offices are becoming “marketing departments,” then what is becoming
of the product marketing/admissions is trying to sell? Well, according
to Edmundson, the product is suffering in response to the desire for consumers.
College has become like a Club Med, which I know is true because I know
a lot of people who say that college would be perfect if it wasn’t for
the classes. Even here at Iona, the cases listed the article correspond
with what is happening here: they want to build new dorms, a new sports
center, and a student union. College admissions offices use these
new developments to incite and attract more students. All the pretty,
the memorable, the picturesque stuff is put in the catalogue.
Pictures of happy students, smiling and laughing,
in neat and tidy dorm rooms comparing notes or just socializing saturate
the admissions literature of all schools. Potential freshman don’t
want to see pictures of college students in the library cramming for midterm
and final exams (the ones who didn’t do their work all semester because
they thought college would be like it is in the pictures they saw) and
admissions officials don’t want to show them pictures like that for fear
of scaring them away. They try to sell the school, but is the same
effort put in educating the students when get there as is put in attracting
them there in the first place? According to Edmundson, teachers soften
while teachers claim that each year the students get smarter as an explanation
for the larger numbers of passing students. It could be both reasons.
It is possible that students are more intelligent than they were years
ago, but there is also the possibility that standards have changed, the
latter of which I am more inclined to believe because I have seen tests
from years ago and I know that those were more difficult that what we do
now.
RICKY: I do agree completely with everything Dierdre said. College is not seen by most students and potential students as four years of higher education; it is seen as four years of continuous partying. As a result, to maintain enrollment, all colleges must cater to this belief, otherwise they would lose all their students because the students would go to a place that does cater to them. They must do this to stay open. Thus, I believe that the colleges do have less intelligent students, as a whole. I agree totally with her statement that tests used to be harder and that the standards have changed. If the standards were the same today as they were years ago, the number of passing studetns would not be so large.
KEVIN: I agree for the most part with Deirdre’s stance on colleges marketing themselves. One the other hand I disagree with her position on our tests versus the tests of yesteryear. As I’ve heard and noticed, the government has been attempting to hike up the standards to educate Americans of what needs to be known in today’s world. As far as I’m concerned, the reason she didn’t know the answer to the test’s questions is due entirely to the fact that we have been taught things that have a greater impact on our daily life. Emphasis has been placed on computer studies instead of carpentry and stuff. The world has advanced so much that comparing the two generations is like comparing a George Clinton record to some “dork-town” pop album. There are very few similarities, if any.
DW: U.S. education seems to me to exist as a sort of paradox: on the one hand, we expect students to do a great deal on their own and tremendous emphasis is placed on individual achievement and individual learning curves. On the other hand, we want "our scores" to match "their scores," in some sort of educational nationalist competition, but we don't seem to realize how much time other cultures spend on rote memorization as the basis for their educational systems. Think about all those tests you took for college. Do any of you think that those exams were a fully adequate measurement of your knowledge, talents, skills, or hard work?
Do you think it's appropriate for colleges to think of students as consumers? Do you think of yourselves as consumers? Think about how many of you--and how many of those people you interviewed--said that money was a large factor in their college decision. Isn't that ultimately a consumerist decision process--weighing how much your education dollar will buy? Given how appallingly expensive college tuition is, almost no one can afford to ignore the price of tuition--but then are there ways to avoid that "knowledge is a product" way of thinking that leads student consumers to expect posh dorms, glitzy gyms, and so forth? Is a teacher really the same as a clerk at a department store, dispensing "knowledge" as if it were lipsticks or sweaters or something? Can we use the techniques of "sales" to sell the college the same way Mickey D sells burgers?
RICKY: In the first few pages of this essay,
pages 39-43 to be more specific, Edmundson speaks a lot about student apathy.
He states that he feels today’s culture of “consumer perspective” is largely
responsible. He comments that he once had a model student in his
class, who went against the norm of society, named Joon Lee. He describes
Joon as “endlessly curious, has read a whole library’s worth, seen every
movie, and knows all about showbiz and entertainment.” He goes on to say
with a negative connotation that the difference between Joon and the rest
of the class was strikingly different.
My question is why is this such a bad thing?
Why does Edmundson make assumptions about students when he truly does not
know the answer? True, not everyone is the model student, in fact
very people are; but that does not make them bad students. So the
other students have not read “a small library’s worth;” so what; their
interest lies somewhere else. If Edmundson took the time to think
about what he was saying, he would have solved his problem of student apathy.
He can’t expect everyone to be like Joon; everyone is different.
What Edmundson must do to truly get the students involved is relate the
class to what they are interested in because then, they will be interested
in what he has to say, too.
Edmundson complains that his student aren’t intellectually motivated and that they “drag in and slump” during class. He says that he rarely sees strong emotional display and incense in his class, implying that this is a bad thing. So what, the students are shy or the students do not feel like sharing their extremely personal views with the other students whom they do not know very well. Just because students do not get up and start screaming in class does not mean that their brains are not working and that they are not wrestling with concepts and arguments inside of them. And isn’t that the point of education to make the student think and learn as a result?
I think that Edmundson’s stereotype of a good student is completely wrong. I do agree with him that TV and other such commodities of our culture discourage learning and schooling. But it is his job as a professor to surpass that and win the student over from this. Yes, this does make his job harder and different, but he is going to have to accept that and adapt. As a result, he must broaden his definition of a good student. When he does all this, I’m sure he will see that there are a lot more good students in his classes than he really thinks there is.
DW: This is a tricky issue. Consider the passages where Edmundson talks about Joon Lee. What he says is that Joon Lee "doesn't mean being at odds with most anyone" (41). In fact, what he is asking for, I think, is for students to be more willing to bring their different attitudes into class. I don't think he is looking for "model" students, but merely students who are willing to pursue their interests within the parameters of the class--to bring more of themselves into what they study. This is different, it seems to me, than asking for a class of brilliant students. Ricky's point is well taken: often learning is happening inside without students offering any evidence of that (no screaming or jumping up and down) on the outside; and often the seeds that get planted in one class don't ripen or even get noticed until much, much later. Haven't any of you experienced that--that it's only one, two, three semesters later that something makes sense?
I want to think about something else that Ricky says here--which is something that others of you have mentioned too: the idea that it is the professor's job to "surpass that and win the student over" from TV and other commodities. Why, I wonder, is that the teacher's job? Doesn't that simply turn the professor into the "entertainer" again? How can one compete with the TV and other attractions of pop culture other than by helping students to "relate," to make jokes, to make it "fun"? Isn't this part of precisely what Edmundson is arguing against? Does the student bear any responsibility for creating a sense of passion even for a required course?
We might also think about how, exactly, Edmundson defines a "good" student...
TIM: I think Ricky is correct
in laying some blame on Edmundson for several points
in his critique. Edmundson is unhappy
with the fact that he must make his
subject matter interesting to his
students so that they will be better able
to learn. However, if he wants
this situation to be remedied, he should be
attacking other facets of American
culture, including television, the
internet, and movies. If he is
unwilling to work for change in these areas,
then he must be willing to accept
the fact that teaching will have to involve
many student-oriented activities.
Ricky also raises the issue of what college
is supposed to be all about. It
should be more than just scholastics, as many
people are more athletic, social,
artisitic, or practical than they are
analytical. A more whollistic approach
to education including work in each of
those areas might be better suited
to students today than the traditional
liberal arts tracts.
ERIN: As I read through Mark Edmundson’s essay “On The Uses of a Liberal Education- As Lite Entertainment For Bored College Students,” I came to a very important realization about myself. I am what you would call a very passive student. Now, I never thought this about myself. After I read the essay and yelled at myself for about ten minutes, I decided to act rationally and think things through. And the more I thought about it, the more I realized Edmundson was right.
College students today “go with the flow.” I have to agree with Edmundson when he says “Students are intimidated in class; the thought of being embarrassed in front of the group fills them with dread.” What he says here is absolute fact, at least for me anyway. I know that I hate when teachers pick on me. If a teacher corrects me, that is fine. Sure, my face turns a shade of red, but I get over it. When a teacher singles me out to say something about my personality, then I want the ground to swallow me whole. For example, there is one teacher who insists on telling the class that I look bored all of the time. Must he do this? I feel my heart beat faster, my neck get blotchy, and my face turn red. This all could have been avoided if the teacher had kept that comment to himself.
DW: A professor who singles out a student in this way isn't doing anyone any favors, I don't think.
Then, of course, there is the “I don’t want to be annoying or sound stupid” approach. I fall into this category. If I don’t understand something, I refuse to raise my hand and tell the teacher, even if I know that fifteen other students do not understand either. I just sort of pray that maybe one of the other students will be brave enough to raise their hand and ask the teacher to explain again. I know I am only hurting myself, but I do not look stupid in front of the class.
I especially do not want to look stupid in front of the teacher. Edmundson feels that his students are the same way I am. He said that his students went into his office and were apologetic for taking up his time. I am the same way. I do not want to disturb a teacher, I know they have volumes of work to do. I guess my attitude is not a good one to have, but I have been this way since elementary school; it is hard to break that habit now.
In my eyes, this has something to do with the environments I have been exposed to. My high school was tough, but I was not exactly at Harvard. The students knew what they could get by with. Some teachers do grade easy, and so a lot of work is not required to pass the class. I think I expect all colleges to have standards like the Ivy League schools, but I am wrong. I find Iona challenging, but I know it could be a lot worse. Students, including myself, do not have to be passionate in their studies in order to pass. As sad as it is to say, many students do not place their college studies first in their life, and so they are not passionate about what they are studying, especially if the subject is unrelated to their major. If a student is not ardent about a topic, they are still going to pass. I do not think this is right, but I think it is the truth. There are a lot of things that are wrong with students today, but I think part of it is the way the whole idea of college is presented.
DW: In all these responses there is an interesting push-pull between "not wanting to look stupid" and not wanting to appear "too smart." Sounds like a tough balancing act. Does Edmundson suggest that he think his students are stupid? Or does he wish, in fact, that they would ask more questions, challenge him and the material that he presents?
How many of you, in fact, have wrestled with this "too smart" issue? That it's still not "cool" (as I think Charlie mentions, below), to be smart. Or that it's maybe okay to be smart, but it would be better still to have a public reputation as a--surfer, jock, skate punk, etc etc ? On some level didn't this entire struggle get played out in the (apparently endless) presidential campaign? Gore-the-too-smart-for-his-own-good vs Bush-the-nice-jock-who-can't-spell-but-who-cares?
TARA: I agree with
everything Erin had to say in her response to this essay, I
found I am exactly like her in
how I act in class. Ricky talked about the
typical sterotype of a student
of Edmunson's students, being that they were
more concerned with entertainment
in the classroom but not the actual
subject. I agree with Ricky in
that a teacher who really wants to teach
should have the "passion" and get
over the fixation of the "bad" students.
He should find his own passion
to teach and incorporate entertainment in his
teaching; I think good teachers
would do that for their students. Also,
Charlie spoke of intellect being
punished in today's world. I totally agree
with that; I think people are afraid
of being smart because it would make
them different. What we should
do, however, is embrace people's smarts, and
then maybe we wouldn't have to
deal with stupid presidential candidates like
Bush (no offense). Conversely,
I have always felt inadequate compared to
others because I am not as smart
as other people. I, as opposed to the
general public, would wish for
a few more IQ points if I had the chance. :)
ANNEMARIE: In her response posted on the website, Erin mentioned that she can understand the feelings of Edmundson’s student who is filled with “dread” at the thought of being corrected by a professor in class. The same is true for me. There are many times when I would like to offer my opinion in class or ask a question, but I often feel too intimidated to do so. This sounds so cliché, but I don’t want to look stupid. I’m sure that many of my classmates feel the same way.
CHARLIE: One of Edmundson’s claims is that today’s students are inferior to those of previous generations. He contests that the modern consumer culture in America has made them devoted to consumption and entertainment. He says that these students feel that they have a right to be entertained, and see their college education as little more than an interesting diversion. They have no passion for learning and show no enthusiasm towards their subjects. They do not want to be challenged nor have their minds pushed at all. They just want to feel good about themselves and have others compliment them. As a result, colleges have changed from institutes of higher learning to Club Med.
Edmundson also argues that genius and the appreciation of genius has grown scarce. Today’s students are shallow, self-centered, and narrowly focused. They see only the world as it impacts them. Even if they have above-average intelligence, popular culture has taught them that it is uncool to be smart, so they hide their intellect behind feigned indifference. Also, society is so obsessed with political correctness and equality that to suppose that one individual is better at anything than another is almost taboo. Edmundson believes that out TV culture has molded these students in such a way that intelligence is punished, not praised.
DW: Is it TV that teaches us to punish intelligence? How so? Why is it uncool to be smart? That's a stereotype that has been around for decades; it's not a post-sixties phenomenon by any means. What explains this?
CHARLIE: Are today’s students really that much
different from those of the past, or is their behavior merely a reflection
in the change of college demographics? In years past, only the cream of
the crop continued their education beyond high school. These students were
highly motivated and already very successful in their studies. At the time,
only the best and the brightest were in the universities. Most of the students
were just like Joon Lee from the essay. Nowadays, so many more people go
on to college. Just as Edmundson pointed out, after expanding to meet the
needs of the baby boom generation, colleges had to admit substandard applicants
to fill seats in classes. As a result, the student population in universities
shifted from the top percent of the general public to a more general representation
of the entire population. People haven’t gotten any dumber; it’s just that
different people are going to college these days. Today’s students are
much more average than their predecessors and cannot be expected to be
as devoted to their education.
ANNEMARIE: I agree with Charlie in that colleges have become similar to a vacation destination than an institution of education. There are way too many American students using college as an excuse to live away from home for four years, party, drink and make friends. Yes, there is work involved, but doing well is what makes Mom and Dad keep paying the tuition. These students are often uninterested in gaining an appreciation of the work covered in their liberal arts courses; they just want to “get by” in these classes before advancing into their major.
AVIVA: As I read the comments on Edmundson’s essay posted by my classmates, I noticed a trend among several people. A few people expressed disgust with Edmundson’s “stereotypes” about impassionate students. I think some people are missing the point of Edmundson’s writing. His point in saying this is that most students are not energetic about their education. Of course there are some, especially in the Honors Program, that are enthusiastic and readily participate in class discussions. While doing all this email correspondence, however, I realized something. I’ve noticed that many of the students in the class are voicing opinions and saying things they wouldn’t normally say in the classroom environment. The safety of the computer screen makes voicing your thoughts less intimidating than if you’re sitting in a fluorescent-lighted room with sixteen sets of eyes staring you down. I think a lot of people tone down their opinions when in the classroom situation for fear that they will look too outspoken or too smart. So it’s easy to say that we are passionate when we are more comfortable admitting our thoughts.
DW: This is a fascinating point. I have also noticed that people have much more to say in writing/cyber-space than often happens in class discussions. The energy that I often sense percolating below the surface in our class discussions bubbles over here, even though in class this happens less often. Again it seems that the pressure is the "looking stupid" thing. Is one of the jobs of a "good" professor to try and create a space wherein that fear or anxiety doesn't exist? And how does that space get created? Very young children are incredibly energetic about their learning--in fact, they often don't think of it as learning. How then does that energy get dulled? Can any of you remember a particular point when that happened?
AVIVA: I was interested in what Charlie had to say and I both agreed and disagreed with him on a certain point. Charlie brought up the fact that several decades ago, only the exceptionally bright students went to college and therefore they were smarter. Now nearly everyone goes on to some type of higher learning, so teachers have to deal with a lower bar of intelligence. The point that’s missing in this argument however is that Edmundson teaches at one of the most challenging public universities in the nation. I personally know a few extremely intelligent kids who tried unsuccessfully to get in to the University of Virginia. It should go without saying that the students that Edmundson interacts with everyday are very, very smart kids. Average students don’t get accepted to his school, so they are not a factor in his argument.
KEVIN: On page 41, Edmundson writes
about how his students often emulate the social behaviors displayed in
visual media. He began to write of the reality that television and
movies are overly abundant and observed by virtually all members of society.
He tells how he feels that people often tend to behave as their favorite
characters on television rather than the loser characters. He wrote,
“Those who play best on it are low-key and nonassertive…the form of character
that’s most appealing on TV is calmly self-interested though never greedy,
attuned to the conventions, and ironic.” He found that most people
act as that character when dealing with real situations.
I agree with him in that people tend to act as
their favorite characters on television. I’ve seen instances when
people acted in a certain character, different from their own, after watching
certain television shows. It shows how powerful the media of television
and movies truly are. Television is capable of causing people to
become the characters, and in effect the individuals lose their identities,
for the time being anyway. This reality draws into discussion the
topic of whether television or movie producers should be responsible for
the actions of society. Personally, I feel that they shouldn’t be
held entirely liable for the actions of the viewers, but I do feel that
they are somewhat responsible. For example, the group Rammstein (A
German industrial-rock group) didn’t tell the executioners at Columbine
to kill their classmates, yet the group also didn’t present positive messages
in their translated lyrics. If there were only a way to open the
eyes of the ignorant individuals that imitate all they hear and see, then
we wouldn’t have to worry about insane actions as a result of the arts.
It really makes you think…
RICKY: I do agree that as children, people tend to immitate and copy their favorite tc or movie character. But as threy get older, they are supposed to outgrow this. I think it is the job of educators to show the children that they must have their own identity. They must show people the difference between fantasy and reality. If they don't, then what Kevin says is true; but it is only the educator's fault that things turned out this way. Therefore, it is unfair for Edmundson, an educator, to criticize the media, like tv and the movies for corrupting people because if all educators did their jobs, tv and movies would not have this effect on people.
AVIVA:: At the risk of sounding like one of his students, I enjoyed Edmundson’s essay. Although it was a bit too lengthy, he had some very valid points to make. I agree with him that kids my age have no passion, but I also think that’s just how we are. It is our tendency to do things just well enough to get by and we hardly ever go the extra mile unless there is some kind of incentive. The euphoric feeling of achievement isn’t enough. I was also very interested in his comments about college becoming more and more like a Club Med. The passage that caught my eye is the paragraph starting with the words “But such improvements…” on page 43. Here Edmundson discusses the need for universities to attract the smartest and the richest kids by offering amenities that the students want. The university is becoming more consumer driven than academically driven. I agree with Edmundson that schools are becoming more like summer camp. I actually thought that about Iona when I first arrived here two months ago. There are so many things going on that school seems to come a distant second to almost everything else. Unlike Edmundson, however, I don’t think that it’s necessarily a bad thing. College shouldn’t be just about getting an education. It should also be about the social and athletic aspects. Family members have long told me that these four years will be the best years of my life. I will meet new people, and gain new experiences that I would never have otherwise. We are all ultimately here to learn, but there is so much more to the college environment that just classes.
Another section of the essay that caught my eye is the paragraph that starts with the words “One of the ways…” on page 44. In this paragraph, Edmundson explains the state of the humanities. Since so few students are interested in this major, the professors are trying to attract students by grading easier and loosening the major requirements. Edmundson goes on to talk about the power of students over their education. If they don’t like a course or it is too challenging, then they can just drop the course with almost no consequence. Before reading this essay, I had never seen the error in this type of procedure. Ideally, students should have to take classes even if they are too hard. It should be the point that the classes are hard. There is a plus side, however, to easier, less painful classes. When something is too challenging, some students tend to become frustrated and give up. They lock up and refuse to continue. When a class is less painful but still fulfilling, students enjoy the course making them more willing to do work and pay attention. Although a class may be on the easy side, a student can still learn a lot from it. On this point, I disagree with Mr. Edmundson.
CORRIE: I agree with Edmundson about the college
admissions process becoming commercialized, and more of a marketing routine.
But, I disagree that colleges, as a whole, are going down the tubes.
I think he makes a good point, but goes a bit too far with it. According
to Edmundson, college has become a “club med” rather than an educational
institute. I think it is unfair for him to say this. Yes, colleges
have become more commercialized and have added many entertainment aspects
to campuses, but their primary purpose is still to educate.
I was quite offended when Edmundson said, “But what they
generally can’t do is acquire a new vocabulary, a new perspective, that
will cast issues in a fresh light” (45). This is entirely untrue.
I have been gaining new perspectives left and right here at IONA.
My vocabulary increases more every day. The fact that Edmundson thinks
all college students come to college to have a good time and party is offensive.
The vast majority of us are here to learn, to exponentially increase our
knowledge. I am appalled that he can cast such stereotypes on college
students.
As for professors grading easier as years go by, I can’t
really comment because I don’t have experience in the past (44).
But, I haven’t found it very easy to get an A. I think that college
professors grade pretty though, maybe not as though as they once did, but
though nonetheless. I don’t think by any means that professors grade
easily. They grade as they see fit, which for t he most part is difficultly.
I also take offense to Edmundson thinking that students
lack enthusiasm (45-46). I see very passionate people in my classes.
Maybe not so much in calculus, or computer science class, but come on,
what do you expect from those types of classes? In my English and
humanities classes, everybody is very opinionated and out spoken.
All over campus I’ve seen some extremely enthusiastic and passionate students.
My experience is quite opposite to Edmundson’s in that I see emotion everywhere
at IONA. I see students stepping out of the ordinary on a daily basis.
It seems to me that everyone around me is trying their hardest to distinguish
themselves from the rest of the population, not trying to conform to the
normal. That is what college is for; finding out who you really are
and what drives you to want to succeed.
While Edmundson does make some very good points of how
certain aspects of college campus life is changing for the worse, I think
for the most part, he is overstepping some boundaries. I don’t think
he should go as far as to call college campus “a retirement spread for
the young” (43). How can he criticize a college for improving the
living conditions on campus? I supposed he would rather us live in
ancient dorm buildings, which don’t pass health and safety codes, and have
beat-up facilities that are from thirty years ago. And besides, with
the prices of tuition today, campus better be in nice condition.
Edmundson needs to realize that times are changing for the better, and
he should lean to accept it and grow along with colleges.
DW: I'm not sure that Edmundson thinks all students come to college just to "party" (UVA has a reputation as being very tough, academically--as well as a "party school"). What he is wondering about has to do with a question of priorities: if so much money is being spent on the physical plant (buildings, grounds, facilities), what monies are left to develop faculty, the library resources, and so forth? It comes back to the ongoing question about the consumer-product relationship that seems to exist between students and their places of higher education.
NICK: I had mixed reactions to Edmundson’s essay. The first time I read it, I was indignant as a reaction to an attack on my culture. Upon review, however, I found that some, not all, of his points are accurate. Before I say anything, though, I would have to note that my views are probably biased by the fact that I am in the Honors Program and thus largely surrounded by students who do want to go the extra distance. I probably do not have a wholistic view of the attitudes here on campus.
DW: This is a good point, which many of you have also noticed. The Honors Program, by its very definition, offers students a different context for learning and--to some degree--may offer different expectations upon its students. But even with the Honors Program, it sounds like there are similar issues: scholarship money, looking "too smart" (or not smart enough), finding passion for required courses, and so forth.
The main things that I find to be true are his statements about lack of emotion and the amount of stress that students put on their studies and how they will affect who the student becomes. I have noticed that my peers and I have a tendency towards complacency. I am probably less so. I see a lot of students just feeling that things aren’t worth worrying about. I don’t know that I agree with Edmundson’s view that this is a bad thing. I am a big fan of change through conflict. I think that the experience can do a lot for a person’s character as well as their ability to function in society. On the other hand, if people are content, what’s the problem. I would counter that argument by saying that things could be better. But ion the end, unless something really bothers me, I let it slide. As for the stress of having a plan and sticking to it, I totally feel that pressure. I attended the Major Day on Thursday, and I spoke to the Assistant Dean of Arts and Science. When I asked her what direction I should be heading in, she told me, “Whatever feels right”. At the moment, I felt that that set me farther back than ever. But now, especially after reading this essay, I am starting to think that maybe that isn’t such a bad idea. Maybe I would be happier if I worried about the ends and concentrated on making sure I liked the means. Maybe everyone would.
KIM: I disagree with Nick’s response about why students are so apathetic in Liberal Arts Colleges. I think it is for the opposite reason actually. I think a good number of students are just lazy. Sure, the subject matter is difficult, like any subject matter at the college level, but laziness is what plagues the students in Liberal Arts Colleges today. Laziness is not only in colleges, but high schools, middle schools, etc. I think that is what Edmundson criticizes the laziness and disinterest of students today.
DW: How many of you have already decided on a major? And how did that decision get made? Is it a "gut" thing, or was it more practical than that, or some combination of both? If you haven't decided on a major, how many of you feel relaxed about that fact? Or do you feel pressure to figure it out? What would happen if people did "whatever feels right"--or is that too similar to "falling off the conveyor belt"?
I do not agree with the statement that all students are looking for the easiest teacher. I can safely say that the majority of my friends say that some of their favorite professors have been the ones who challenged them and made them think. There is nothing wrong with a professor being interesting or humorous. The point is, that the student learns. And of course students will avoid that proverbial professor that refuses to give any A’s, regardless of performance, just because they believe that no one is A quality. That’s natural. Perhaps we are shaped by our society, but I can’t help thinking that Edmundson’s generation was too and things came out ok. Everyone is shaped by their society. Maybe it is just the melancholy gen-x-er talking, but I just happen to believe that change happens and it will take us where it will. Resistance is futile. What needs to happen will happen.
CORRIE: I completely agree with Nick that an interesting or humorous professor is a good thing. The point IS that the student learns. I think students learn so much better from a teacher that is interesting and/or humorous. It keeps us interested in what is being taught. And, no, nobody wants to be in a class where it is completely impossible to get an A. That is very discouraging to a student that is putting their all into assignments.
ROB: I would like to comment on Nick’ s response. I think that he is right about how the best teachers are the ones who challenge their student the most. I also agree with his idea on how people should not always concentrate so hard on the ends, but take time to think about the means that are getting them there.
AMANDA: In Mark Edmundson's "On the Uses of a Liberal Education", Edmundson makes several points about today's college students that I never really noticed until he mentioned them. Edmundson remarked how college campuses are starting to look like Club Med. The schools want to attract as many kids, and their money, as possible so the colleges improve their campus' so that it doesn't even look like a place of learning. The most important conclusion that Edmundson came to is the lack of interest and enthusiasm displayed by students when it comes to learning. I found it disheartening to hear a teacher talk about his students in such a negative and disappointed manner. When I read the article I realized that the college students of today aren't really dedicated to learning and that they are looking for an easy way to go through life. I recognized it in myself and in my friends as well. I detected that I am not the most outgoing and willing to learn individual. It made me take a step back and ask myself "Why am I going to college?" I began to think about whether I really enjoy my classes and if I don't, what is the reason for me to continue to stay in school. I came to the conclusion that there isn't really anything else for me to do but go to college. By going to college I will be able to get a degree and eventually find a good job.
I related most to Edmundson's example of asking a student a question and them responding with the minimal amount of effort. I thought about my classes and my answers to a teacher's random question, and quite frankly, I became a little embarrassed. I noticed that I more often than not, respond with the same monotone and uninterested answers that he was talking about in such disgust. It was hard to read the whole article without being a little ashamed because I related to the students that he was criticizing.
Edmundson's article opened my eyes and I see that the college students of today are lacking a lot when it comes to learning. He made me look at myself and that is something that is really important. His article had me relate what he was saying to my own experiences and that is impressive. I usually read an assignment and answer the questions and don't think about the work again. This article is going to constantly be in my mind when I answer a question in class. I think that he did a great job in getting his point across and he makes the reader walk away with something to think about.
MONICA: In her response, Amanda said "When I read the article I realized that the college students of today aren't really dedicated to learning and that they are looking for an easy way to go through life. " I totally agree with this. No matter how many people say that they know many students who are interested in their studies and dedicated to learning, I'm sure they can point out 50 more students who are in their classes because they have to be. The majority of the people are there because they know is a way of achieving their end goal of a "good job with good money." Very few people are genuinely interested in what goes on in their classes. If attendance didn't affect grades, I'm sure that the number of people absent from class would greatly increase. How many people do you think would still be in college if they were told that they could have thier "good job with good money" without a college degree? I wonder...
CORRIE: I too was disheartened to hear of the negative attitude towards college students. While I agree with Amanda that “the college students of today aren't really dedicated to learning and that they are looking for an easy way to go through life,” I also disagree. I think that a good majority of us think this way, but there are still a lot of students that are passionate about learning. There are still a good amount of us that are here to learn, that are excited to expand our knowledge in as many fields as possible. Maybe it is because I am in the honors program that I still see enthused students in class. Maybe honors students are more interested in the classes, and in leaning than the rest of the IONA population is. Perhaps the rest of the college is as unenthused as Edmundson asserts.
TIM: Amanda takes another
approach in responding to the essay. It seems clear that
if the reader agrees with Edmundson
about the current situation of American
education, the reader must assume
that either something must be changed about
society, education, or students
themselves. Ricky has taken the position that
educators must change while Amanda
has taken the position that students (with
the example of herself) must change.
As a member of the generation Edmundson
criticizes, I prefer to take the
approach that society or education must
change. However, I must admit to
a large degree of guilt when it comes to
academic commitment. In comparison
to past generations, I may have been
conditioned to be lazier and more
dependent on audiovisual stimulation. I
can't deny that I still have choice
when it comes to putting real effort to
gain knowledge through my studies.
TARA: I found Edmundson’s essay thought-provoking because it made me think about my own life and how my everyday actions make up who I am. In the beginning, when he talks about teaching for the sake of education and not for entertainment, he states “thanks, but no thanks.” While I do understand that he wants to just teach, if a teacher doesn’t present the information in an interesting manner, he will lose his students. I think the media is to blame for most of these teacher frustrations. Edmundson talks about a loss of passion in search instead for sameness. Again, I feel the media has ingrained images of similar-looking people who display the same type of persona; there is no individuality, and with no individuality, there can be no passion. I think that people are afraid to be drastically different for fear of the thoughts others may have. Edmundson comments about one of his “passionate” students, Joon Lee, who wrote exquisitely and eccentrically. While Edmundson isn’t calling for high IQs, he does want his students to truly embrace what he has to teach them. What I think, however, is that people aren’t embracing learning as they should. There has been persona and image displayed to the public about how they should think, and if one was to think differently, it would cause him to become passionate. Becoming passionate would translate into being different which is “forbidden.”
DW: Interesting--this is again that idea of it being "uncool"--whether what's uncool is being too smart or too passionate or...
When Edmundson talks of his students speaking in front of the class, he says “the thought of being embarrassed in front of the group fills them with dread.” I know that for me this holds true because I am afraid of being wrong. I’ve gone to school with really smart kids my whole life and have developed a fear of being wrong. I am gradually recovering, having my days when I “display a light, appealing glow”, but I also have my other days where I have “little fire.” I think because we are bombarded with images of a persona we are supposed to somehow achieve, even though we can’t, we still subconsciously think it is obtainable and steer clear of anything that could somehow break our concentration. I think what Edmundson was trying to convey was that students should truly embrace learning. Also he wants students to become free-thinking individuals so that they can benefit society using their individual talents, and not conform to what society declares is the “right” persona.
DW: Yes, I think this is definitely one implication of Edmundson's argument: one of the true benefits of liberal arts is that there is not "one way" to "do" liberal arts. Consider his definition of liberal arts (48), in which he talks about liberal arts making us free.
CORRIE: I totally agree with Tara on this issue. I feel that teachers that do not on some level relate to their students become bad teachers. A teacher needs to be able to get through to students. That is the only way they will willingly learn. Nobody enjoys a class where they are taught at, and lectured at; it’s boring. If a student gets so bored during class that they are either falling asleep or daydreaming, then that is a sign that their teacher is not doing a good job of portraying the information.
TIM: Professor Edmundson makes an interesting evaluation of the current status of a liberal arts education. He addresses the issue of whether or not it is becoming a means to an end. More prevalent are his views on the pleasure-driven, consumerist culture which is destroying the foundations for positive student involvement in liberal arts education. I disagree with Edmundson on several points.
First is his notion that teachers have changed the purpose of their classes from instruction to entertainment. It is clear that a push for entertaining modes of teaching is prevalent in American education. This push, however, is in reaction to American culture rather than a concession to it. Simply put, education is saying to the media culture, “two can play at that game.” Entertaining and engaging modes of teaching bring students into subject matter with an interest and enthusiasm that would certainly fail to exist otherwise. The end goal remains education. If this were not so, lectures would be broadcast during primetime.
DW: Do students, however, recognize this distinction, however? Consider what Edmundson says about his evaluations: they enjoy the class, it's entertaining, they can "relate." Perhaps these are all important tools that the professor is using to help students learn--but students might be confusing the medium with the message, to paraphrase Marshall McCluhan. Students see and hear the entertainment factor --and as I think Amanda said--remember the jokes but not much else.
Another idea of Edmundson’s that strikes me as inaccurate is his belief that the desire to be “cool and laid back” has given my generation a reaction formation that subdues the expression of our emotions. This is simply not true, as I am living testament to the contrary. I have no qualm voicing my opinions on religion, politics and relationships and I know many others that do the same. There is a growing league of members of my generation who insincerely put forward ideas and opinions for the sake of argument or attention. Their enthusiasm, (as well as the legitimate ones) certainly don’t display a stifled enthusiasm, as Edmundson asserts.
Finally, Edmundson believes that students cannot “acquire a new vocabulary, a new perspective, that will cast issues in a fresh light.” I wholeheartedly disagree. While such factors as pride might obscure surface evidence of this taking place, students’ perspectives are certainly changed by a liberal arts education. Our culture simply encourages us to neither advertise nor even admit to the fact that this is taking place.
DW: Is there a point at which, however, this learning of new vocabularies and perspectives needs to be displayed? Should we perpetuate a culture that doesn't encourage us to show what we're learning--much less to show that we are excited about what we are learning?
CORRIE: I chose to comment on this quote also. I was appalled that he said we could not acquire a new vocabulary or perspective. I agree with Tim that, while we may not openly share our new perspectives, they are there. That is the point of going to college, to learn as much as possible about the world, thus expanding our vocabularies and perspectives.
MONICA: In his response, Tim had said "Another idea of Edmundson's that strikes me as inaccurate is his belief that the desire to be cool and laidback has given my generation a reaction formation that subdues the expression of our emotions. This is simply not true, as I am living testament to the contrary. I have no qualm voicing my opinions on religion, politics and relationships and I know many others that do the same. There is a growing league of members of my generation who insincerely put forward ideas and opinions for the sake of argument or attention. Their enthusiasm, (as well as the legitimate ones) certainly don't display a stifled enthusiasm, as Edmundson asserts. " I disagree with Tim on this point. Even though I know that Tim and many other people in our classes are good examples of people who are not afraid to express thier ideas and opinions, I feel that these people represent the minority as far as these issues are concerned. I think that it is far more common to find students who are not involved in the issues surrounding them. It is much more common to see active class participation in higher-level honors classes than it is in other classes. Maybe this is the case because the majority of the people in the honors classes have the confidence in their knowledge and intelligence which allows them to speak openly and avoid any fears of judgement from others. I have found that people are much more open to discussion on subjects which they know about well, because they can then argue their points effectively. I guess this would mean that what Edmunson is describing is kind of like an endless cycle If students are not interested in what they are learning, they will not study as hard, and will therefore not know the subject very well - if they do not know the subject well, they will not be willing to outwardly discuss the subject, either because they don't know enough about it or they just simply don't care.
ANNEMARIE: I think it is quite sad that a college professor at the distinguished University of Virginia would go so far as to say that a liberal arts education is “ineffective”. From what I gathered from reading the class’s responses in our liberal arts discussion, I believe that many of us saw the value in an education such as the one we are receiving now. I can, however, understand Edmundson’s position where he is discouraged when hearing that students “enjoyed” his course. His feelings made me think about the way that some of the teachers I’ve had in the past have handled the presentation of topics in class. I can understand how a professor would like to introduce a concept that requires the student to give much thought and energy to take in, and I can see why Edmundson is dissatisfied with his students in this area.
Edmundson is right when he says that a university culture,
as well as the rest of American culture, has become accustomed to dwelling
on entertainment and the use of images rather than the use of their true
intellectual capacities. While members of my generation (the college
students of today) had nothing to do with the creation of these images,
we do nothing to break away from them.
When Edmundson begins to talk about Joon Lee, I feel
that he is unfairly judging other students. While I am sure it’s
true that Joon Lee was one of the best, if not the best, student Professor
Edmundson ever had. Joon is obviously a very intelligent young man,
as I am sure the rest of the students at University of Virginia are, but
the comparison of the rest of the student body, however, is quite unfair.
It is true that many universities have gone the extra mile to revamp their facilities to attract, as Edmundson puts it, the best: the smartest and the richest. It seems to me that there is something missing in the education of college students. The college financial officer interviewed by Edmundson put it best, “Colleges don’t have admissions offices anymore, they have marketing departments.”
Overall, I agree with Edmundson when he says that college students are overcome by a slew of images that often inhibit them from using the full capacity of their minds. But, the liberal arts curriculum at colleges across the country is not to blame. We must look at the way in which these courses are taught and how each student perceives the information put forth by the professor. If we can change the way in which students wish to learn, we can perhaps change their attitudes about learning.
KIM: Mark Edmundson’s essay “The uses of a liberal education” was successful, in so far as it made me stop and critique my own education. It forced me to seriously question whether or not I am taking full advantage of the educational opportunities offered to me. Am I a “Joon Lee” in the eyes of my professors? Do I have the strength and determination to not mind “being at odds with most anyone?” Or am I the very student that Edmundson criticizes, “very, very self-contained…low-key and nonassertive.” Edmondson’s detailed criticisms brought to light the problem with students today. I myself have thought along similar lines as Edmundson while sitting in class. In Edmundson’s own words, “most students seem desperate to blend in, to look right, not to make a spectacle of themselves.”
I agree completely with Edmundson, even though by agreeing with him I am being critical of myself, as well as of my peers. I am guilty of acting like the students he describes, as is most everyone. Edmundson’s essay simply places a label upon such people. It is nothing to take offense to; that is not the purpose of the essay. The purpose of this essay is for each person who reads it to realize some of what he describes is in themselves as well as in their society. Their society is, according to Edmundson, “inhibited, except on ordained occasions, from showing emotion, stifled from trying to achieve anything original. You’re made to feel that even the slightest departure from the reigning code will get you genially ostracized.”
Edmundson provides reasons as to why students and their society act the way they do today. He defends the youth and explains; “they didn’t create the present culture of consumption” instead it was their parents whom “sheltered these students, kept them away from the hard knocks of everyday life, making them cautious and over fragile.” The second cause of this tragedy, according to Edmundson is money. He condemns the fear of people worrying too much about their future to take chances in the present. I too find this disgraceful, but I too am guilty of it to a certain extent. “There’s a sentiment currently that if you step aside for a moment, to write, to travel, to fall too hard in love, you might lose position permanently.”
His criticisms as well as his reasons are all too true. But, as a student it is much easier to criticize than to correct. Sure, Edmundson can point fingers all he wants, but to actually “strive against the existing conformity” is a much tougher task. Daily I attempt to do so, but it is at times a discouraging and unattainable goal. I believe that Edmundson must appreciate the attempts as much as the actual achievement. Attempting to go against the masses is the first step in actually doing so. Reading Edmundson’s essay simply reminded me of the importance of never giving up those attempts despite the huge voiceless opposition that exists in colleges across the country.
ROB: Mark Edmundson’s essay contained so many applicable points. His topics are closely related to what I go through and experience as a college student. All throughout the reading of this essay I would read a paragraph and stop to think on how it was like I was reading pages out of a book about my life. It took me about an hour to read this, what I consider easy reading, essay. The extended time was not because I was drifting off into other thoughts, but because I would stop and apply the stories to my life, or Edmundson’s anecdotes would trigger some association with a movie or event. It was enthralling to a point.
In the beginning of the essay Edmundson talks about how when he teaches his students often misinterpret his ideas. He says that he has fallen into the habit of telling jokes or trying to lighten the topic to make it understandable. Although this makes his class more enjoyable for the students, Edmundson feels like they are not learning the true lessons. He felt that the only way to get his students to respond to the curriculum was to constantly think of ways to fight against possible student boredom. Unfortunately, now his student are enjoying and taking the wrong things likely. Edmundson’s problem made me think about my own classes. I have noticed throughout the years that the teachers whose classes I liked the best were not necessarily my best teachers. Often times I would enjoy going to a certain teachers class because like Edmundson, the teacher would try to make the topics fun or class discussions would drift off to more contemporary issues. I am sure that every student has had one of those teachers where it did not matter whether you did your homework or not because the class discussion would always turn into something interesting or current. I loved those classes and often was friends with those teachers, however at the end of the year, I would realize that I had not learned a thing. And at the same I am sure that every student has had the type of teacher that conducts the most boring classes filled with nothing but historical fact, forcing them to do nothing but learn. Those classes were the ones that any student would love to miss but never had the chance. Again however, at the end of the year when I thought about the torturous hours in that classroom I realized that they were not all for nil. I had learned the material and become a more knowledgeable person. Now is not this the entire purpose of school? The reason why we as students get up in the morning and do homework at night is to better ourselves intellectually. Classes that are boring do not always appeal to student but at least they are beneficial. Classes filled with “fluff” curriculum do nothing but waste a student time and education.
It is comforting to know that there are teachers like Edmundson; teachers who can understand the concept of grasping a student’s attention without wasting their time. Edmundson does not enjoy teaching his students knowing that they are not enjoying learning. At the same time, he also does not enjoy teaching his students knowing that they will at the end of the semester, leave his class without learning a thing. Edmundson is in search of the happy medium. He wants to conduct a class such that the student wants to come to class, participate in the discussions and ultimately, truly understand and benefit from the topics. Edmundson does not really give his plans on how he will achieve the medium between wasting a student education and boring a student to death, but he does refer to an old piece of newsreel he once saw. Edmundson describes the speaker in the newsreel as captivating a large crowd by frantically waving his arms and exploding with passion. In order to create the right kind of learning environment for his students, Edmundson says that he will use the same passion and enthusiasm that the frantic speaker used. Now, if any teacher could show me as a student that much enthusiasm, I would love to learn and be involved in any discussion.
DW: It's interesting to think about how we respond to those passionate teachers--we might admire their passion, but do we want ourselves to emulate that passion? How do we react in the classroom to classmates whose passions seem "excessive"?
MONICA: When reading certain part of Edmuson's
essay, I could not believe how
directly some of his comments applied to me. When he
was explaining the
laid-back, quiet appraoch of mos of his students, I couldn't
help but notice
how perfectly I must fit this description. It's not that
I don't have
anything to say about the things which are discussed
in the classes, but I
am probably one of the last people you will ever see
raising my hand to
volunteer an answer. I guess I would therefore be what
Edmunson called the
"very self-contained" student. It is so very true that
there is an extreme
lack of "passion" towards anything in people these days.
Reading the many
examples of this made me realize the many ways that Edmunson's
point can be
seen in everyday life. He even said that when conflicts
arise, people
usually avoid any emotional display by just saying "Whatever"
and walking away. This
made me realize how much I fit into this description.
That word seems to be
the way I feel about just about everything. Especially
school. I used to like school and be interested in it, but it has now
become something that I just "have to" do. I agree that
schools are just
basically using marketing strategies to attract as many
paying students as
possible. With the focus being on the exterior elements
of the school, it
comes as no surprise that many people end up being disappointed
with the
main part of the college - the courses and work
in these courses. I guess that
until people start feeling an interest in what they're
learning, the only
word that they will be able to use to describe the academic
aspect of their
college years is just "whatever."
Email a response: Dwilliams@iona.edu