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?
