Some takeaway points about learning that I got from the articles:
1. I've definitely realised how multitasking inhibits my effectiveness and have been making it a point to focus on completing one task at a time. I never knew how pervasive multitasking was in my life until I tried completing only one task without being distracted by other things!
2. Deresiewicz's point about reading classic books is something I've never thought about before. I always liked reading books from recent times because I understand them better; I tend to shy away from books that were written before the 1990s. But now he's set me a challenge, and maybe I will pick up James Joyce or Joseph Conrad now.
Now, regarding education.
My choice to remain as a student of the Liberal Arts College, career path undefined, and not enroll in the business school, nursing school, or embark on the pre-professional track was because something in me urges me to keep exploring the world and the boundaries of my mind. Many times it feels like I can't control this urge to find out more. This desire often seems to be the antithesis of a pre-professional path.
When I was a sophomore, I was faced with the decision to apply to the business school. I eventually decided not to because every time I thought about the business school, I felt an intense revulsion towards it. Although being in the business school teaches one very useful skills, to me, that path seemed stifling. All those class requirements, tedious group work assignments, and excel spreadsheets seemed boring compared to the prospect of being able to read, write papers, and attend discussions on issues such as globalisation, development, and urban revitalisation.
Many college students would argue that previous paragraph's articulated notions of a liberal arts education and a business school education are somewhat idealistic, and I agree. When I take College classes, I find myself frequently disappointed because I don't have the in-depth, thought-provoking discussions as often as I'd like to. Despite this, College classes still give me the opportunity to reflect on these "big" questions. These reflections have given me a solid framework for viewing the world critically, achieving the aim of a liberal arts education articulated by Deresiewicz in "The Disadvantages of an Elite Education".
Deresiewicz argues that the liberal arts education was founded on the premise that a broad, socially conscious education is the best means of fostering intellectual development, which people viewed was important for social change to occur. However, elite universities now pay lip service to that notion and are instead more concerned with creating excellent technicians ("hoop-jumpers" is his term): people with good engineering, business, medical skills who don't always look beyond their immediate course of study to evaluate how they can use these skills for the betterment of society. The elite universities of the US thus fall short of their original mission to educate the youth.
Deresiewicz also argues that that an elite education is "anti-intellectual" as it nurtures a false desire for financial security and discourages risk-taking. According to him, different universities attract students of a certain social echelon and train them for the social position they will occupy when they graduate. At Yale, they are trained to be professionals, graduating with a grade-inflated GPA and multiple extracurriculars; at a lesser college they are trained "for positions somewhere in the middle of the class system". This emphasis on material well-being discourages risk-taking and intellectual courage. Students reason to themselves that since their families spent so much on their education, they shouldn't waste it by becoming a low income-earner--which they might become if they follow their passions.
Deresiewicz then goes on to link this aversion to risk-taking with anti-intellectualism. "The system forgot to teach them, along the way to the prestige admissions and the lucrative jobs, that the most important achievements can’t be measured by a letter or a number or a name. It forgot that the true purpose of education is to make minds, not careers."
He then links intellectualism with social change:
Since the idea of the intellectual emerged in the 18th century, it has had, at its core, a commitment to social transformation. Being an intellectual means thinking your way toward a vision of the good society and then trying to realize that vision by speaking truth to power. It means going into spiritual exile. It means foreswearing your allegiance, in lonely freedom, to God, to country, and to Yale. It takes more than just intellect; it takes imagination and courage. “I am not afraid to make a mistake,” Stephen Dedalus says, “even a great mistake, a lifelong mistake, and perhaps as long as eternity, too.”
I agree with this because I have a natural inclination towards learning. I love ideas; in fact, I often get very distracted by them. They seem like little fireflies that flit to and fro in front of me, and I keep swiping at them, trying to possess them, but they are never in my hand for long. Initially I thought that was a disadvantage when everyone around me seems to be so focused, but now I'm beginning to realise that my need for a broad perspective is an immutable part of me that must be honed and used for the greater good.
So although as an individual I agree with Deresiewicz's argument for a greater emphasis on learning, I think he's coming to the table with some assumptions that aren't true for everyone. He's assuming that intellectualism and individualism are ideals that everyone should and does strive for. I believe that people hold different values in this world, and the university system, like much of America, tries to accommodate all types of students: the ones who would like to change the world on a macro level, and the ones who would rather focus on individual issues, perhaps involving their family and loved ones, first. Because of this aim to meet a broad section of society's needs, the university system will inevitably disappoint some people. But in general, it will be sufficient for these different types of students.
I've encountered many different types of students on Emory's campus, and many care about intellectual inquiry, but to different extents. Many appreciate that a greater awareness of the world can help an individual be a more sensitive, precise problem-solver, but this extra bit of education does not always make them inclined to change the world with big plans and big ideas. There are many students who would like to change the world, but there are others who are perfectly happy and preoccupied with their families, relationships, and future career. I don't sense that they feel a certain urge to be "leaders" and change the world on a large scale. They may very well, through their commitment to specific communities, change their communities, and this contribution is just as important to society than change on a large scale.
Although it is important to think critically about issues in order to tackle them thoughtfully, there must come a point when enough information has been gathered and action must be taken. We will never know if our well-crafted plans are successful unless they are put in action, and for different issues, the level of thoughtfulness and preparation required before action is different. There is great value in learning while doing as well, and for some people this may be a very effective means of problem-solving.
Secondly, Deresiewicz acknowledges that the consequences to taking risks are less severe in the US compared to the rest of the world, and thus encourages students of elite universities to take these risks to discover themselves:
You can live comfortably in the United States as a schoolteacher, or a community organizer, or a civil rights lawyer, or an artist—that is, by any reasonable definition of comfort. You have to live in an ordinary house instead of an apartment in Manhattan or a mansion in L.A.; you have to drive a Honda instead of a BMW or a Hummer; you have to vacation in Florida instead of Barbados or Paris, but what are such losses when set against the opportunity to do work you believe in, work you’re suited for, work you love, every day of your life?
This doesn't sit well with me. Deresiewicz seems to be operating under the assumption that self-actualisation, doing what one loves and is most passionate about, is what all college students should strive for. In reality, college students are driven to fulfill different needs. Assuming Maslow's theory of the hierarchy of needs holds, each student can be motivated by their need for safety, love, or self-esteem, needs that fall below the pinnacle of the pyramid, self-actualisation. Some students may legitimately feel that they cannot afford to take risks as they have to return to parents who are struggling to make ends meet, who sent their children to college in hope that they will return to alleviate their burdens. Students of elite universities who have these types of family circumstances are few and far between, but they are present. Should they just run off to become artists or farmers? That seems to be a pretty individualistic, selfish choice.
I struggle with this decision. I always feel the need to provide for my parents in the future, yet my interests pull me away from the conventional, money-making path. Because despite my criticisms of Deresiewicz's article, I believe that there is great value in intellectual inquiry, in asking both "big questions" and preparing to tackle small, bite-sized tasks. Often, though, asking big questions doesn't necessarily pay. Yet if I feel this is something I am called to do, what can I do but trust and follow?
No comments:
Post a Comment