Creativity Vs Academic Study

1848 Words4 Pages

In “We Should Cherish Our Children’s Freedom to Think,” Kie Ho appeals to the growing trend of people in the United States who complain about the quality of the educational system. Ho supports this system and advises his readers to reconsider the characteristic virtues of the US education. He strongly emphasizes how it guarantees and even encourages and supports its students’ freedom, particularly the freedom of self-expression. In general, I would agree with Ho’s view that it’s very important to give children the opportunity to develop their creativity and freethinking. It is important in today's world that our children become creative and critical thinkers with strong values, and that they are able to see things in a different light, and also to view the world in a distinct and personal way. I would also agree that America has long and rich experience with using the approaches of creative learning and critical thinking. Nevertheless, Ho’s point of view that the strength of the United States as a ‘country of innovations’ is tied to its system of school education remains a biased opinion and oversimplifies an otherwise complex issue. Ho fails make me believe that the American school system is far better than in other countries as his evidence is weak and fallacious.

The lack of strong supporting points and examples makes Ho’s argument fragile and somewhat incredible. In order to challenge those critics who are overanxious about the US education system, Ho frames his main counter-argument in a question “If American education is so tragically inferior, why is it that this is still the country of innovation?” (113). Although it initially appears to be a very effective approach to build his persuasive argument, i...

... middle of paper ...

... problems, and manage personal finances. A purely creative educational system that Ho idolizes would not cater to any of these needs and, accordingly, wouldn’t benefit America. A more realistic comparison of the American education system with other systems around the world could be based on a variety of factors including comparative achievements in mathematics and science, useful world geographical and historical knowledge besides other subject knowledge, not just the ability to create art from everyday objects, as Ho seems to believe. American innovation often comes from engineering and hard science where application of “ non creative “ facts and formulae are routinely applied. On the whole, Ho’s argument reminds me of a burst balloon. That is something that started out very bright and promising, but turned out to be just a spent piece of rubber in the end.

Open Document