Exploratory Essay

Exploratory Essay

                In my English class we have delved deep into education from the sense that schools across the country do not prepare us for success instead they fill our minds with facts, numbers and general information. During our deep analysis of that matter we have read a few articles that argue that humanities and learning how to interact with others are essential to having success.

                For example in the article “On the Uses of Liberal Education” by Earl Shorris the writer identifies how humanities, which are prominent in rich communities and foreign to the poor social class communities, is a major factor that separates the rich from the poor. For example in the article Shorris states “The absence of politics in their lives was what kept them poor. I don’t mean “political” in the sense of voting in an election but in a way Theuydides used the word the word to mean activity with other people at every level”. This statement shows that in poor communities people are not as united as people who live in rich communities. In life we hear a lot of reasons for why those who work together can prosper much more than those who try and do it alone.  Historically the great people we talk about in the classrooms and are written about in textbooks or articles all had a support system to back them up, to help them become great. Shorris’ statement connects the must of cooperating with others to the prosperity of the entire community. Shorris argued that rich people know the importance of humanities because of their educational background. In the article Shorris states “Rich people learn these humanities in private schools and expensive colleges”. That statement shows a cycle that allow the rich kids to grow up and be rich and cause the poor kids to grow up and be poor. Not all schools teach the humanities that help students become successful and by Shorris’ statement most of the schools that do teach these important humanities are the expensive schools that only the rich can afford to go to. That leaves the poor students to attend schools that won’t prepare them for a successful future.

                Earl Shorris continues his argument by relating the acquisition of power to the rich and how they do it so effectively. Shorris believes that in our country the rich have all of the power because they have all of the money. Shorris sees humanities as a way to understand the everyday obstacles that come with living in this world. Shorris states “The humanities are a foundation for getting along in the world, for thinking , for learning to reflect on the world instead of just reacting to whatever is forced against you”. That statement shows that Shorris believes that humanities help people understand the thought process of others and how to go about handling situations that can greatly impact your life. But I wonder how do the rich get the power and what does money have to do with it? Shorris states that “If you want real power, legitimate power, the kind that comes from the people and belongs to the people, you must understand politics”. I understand that Shorris thinks that politics in the since of people communicating with others is the sole reason for why the rich have power. But I don’t understand how cooperating with others allows the rich elite to have power. I mean in the U.S the rich elite is the smallest of the social classes and they compete amongst themselves when it comes to business and money so where does the cooperation comes into play.  Earl Shorris used this article to show how the simple things we look overlook in our everyday lives like communicating and cooperating with others and connect that to a pressing issue that could plague those who will one day run this country.

                Jean Anyon, another writer who also believed that humanities are very important to the success of all people in our country, showed how education differs between social classes and how that structure prepared students to live in whatever social class their school is tailored to.  In the article titled “Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum” Jean Anyon separated schools based on social class and focused on how each school’s teaching effected the thought process of their students. For example in the article Anyon states “Scholars in political economy and the sociology of knowledge have recently argued that public schools in complex industrial societies like our own make available different types of educational experience and curriculum knowledge to students in different social classes”. That statement shows how our education system is like a factory and the students will be formed into the type of citizens that is common to the citizens in that area. This make sense because in our country there isn’t one school curriculum for the entire country, each state gets to create their own standards for their schools and then you have private schools that can have their own curriculum. Anyon doesn’t argue if allowing schools to differ from each other is a good or bad thing instead Anyon just shows how this effects the kids that will one day impact this country.  Anyon states “In the two working-class schools, work is following the steps of a procedure. The procedure is usually mechanical, involving rote behavior and very little decision making or choice. The teachers rarely explain why the work is being assigned, how it might connect to other assignments, or what the idea is that lies behind the procedure or gives it coherence and perhaps meaning or significance.”  The two working class relates to the students who come from poor families, and in their schools they are required to only record and remember the answer to the questions and are not asked to think about how to get the answers or ways in which the answer could be different. In this article the writer states “The products of work in this class are often highly valued by the children and the teacher”. In class the productivity of the class is determined by the material the teacher produces and what knowledge the students take away from the class. In our country that essentially is what categorizes students and show how successful they are becoming.

                When Jean Anyon talks about schools that are tailored towards the rich elite he shows how the students are able to express their personality through their work and truly find their own way of thinking. For example in the article Anyon states “Children are continually asked to reason through a problem, to produce intellectual products that are both logically sound and of top academic quality”. This statement shows that students discuss their work in search for more than just the answer, students leave schools with more than just information they also take away a personalize way of thinking and understanding of how others thinks which improve social skills and leadership. A common question that I don’t think that these writers are answering is how do you get the student to take an interest in their education? Also should the country allow states to create their own school system or should the government step in and crack down on the schools that are struggling to produce productive students?