One question that may come to mind is, “What is liberal education?”. The answer is simple, liberal education is an approach to learn, that teaches people the ways of life. Liberal education has come to be a “necessity” in our world today. According to Huffington’s Post. “All successful careers require critical thinking, teamwork, sensitivity to cultural, demographic, economic and societal differences and political perspectives” (Ray). It is with our understanding that people who choose to obtain a liberal education already have this advantage over the people who choose not to obtain a liberal education. Although, in some cases this isn’t entirely true. Charles Murray’s states in his argument that only a small number of students have the ability …show more content…
In Newman 's opinion everyone is capable to achieve education with the right teacher. An education without the personal influence of teachers would be considered an "arctic winter", dull and unchangeable. This is shown when Newman 's University did not flourish because the professors did not have a "university education". Therefore, they couldn 't properly teach the required courses. A person is well rounded in their education when they can use their intellect in any science or calling. In contrast, Newman was a firm believer in everyone receiving an …show more content…
Steffens would be a supportive party in Murray’s argument. In the article Sending a State to College, Steffens saw how students lacked the interest to pursue a liberal education when there was no immediate result, “the farmers like many business men and the practical world generally, thought they “knew it all”; they regarded science as theory and higher education as a waste of time”. This would be the reason why he created the University Extension Division to attract many people who want to gain different results from the University. Steffens knew first hand that many people lacked interest to pursue a liberal education when the farmers in Wisconsin would drop out of the four-year course because of the general education
In Chapter 2 of In Defense of a Liberal Education by Fareed Zakaria titled “A Brief History of Liberal Education” Zakaria does just that he begins chapter 2 giving a history lesson on the history of liberal education. From its beginning in Ancient Greece, where lessons consisted of the studying of Homeric poetry to codes, values, and physical training. In the start, the people of Greece did not like the need for this liberal education. Zakaria talks about how Plato and Isocrates both had different outlooks on what should be taught. Plato “considered education a search for truth.” (Pg42) Where Isocrates believed that studying rhetoric, language, and morality (Pg43). Zakaria also talks about the liberal education in the Roman empire along with
If they are taught correctly, liberal arts classes have the potential to help “students cross social boundaries in their imaginations. Studying a common core of learning will help orient them to common tasks as citizens; it will challenge or bolster… their views and, in any case, help them understand why not everyone in the world (or in their classroom) agrees with them,” explains Gitlin in his article “The Liberal Arts in an Age of Info-Glut.” By exposing students to this in high school, they will be more prepared when this moment occurs in their careers. I, along with many students throughout the country, have been exposed to incorrectly-taught liberal arts classes. Students taking English, for instance, must read specific novels while assessing a theme that is already pointed out to them. Then, they must answer a question that has only two answers. This type of curriculum not only eliminates the development of opinions, but it keeps the students from being exposed to most of the author's beliefs and the author’s point of view, which is the main purpose of liberal arts classes. Without this exposure, students are left incapable of working with others and accepting their opinions in order to develop solutions to
Liberal educations benefit students in the long run, long after students have paid their loans. People are able to be informed on national topic, while also being able to be self dependent. Two qualities that are essential in the modern society. I believe it is important to have such a basic understanding of education and knowledge, just like what Nussbaum agreed too in her essay. However, I also believe the curriculum should be centered around making students a better person. Institutions should try to produce good people with the right intentions instead of just focusing on testing intelligence, similar to what Cronon focused on in his essay. If we can incorporate both of these important features into our liberal education system, then and only then, will we be thriving as a society. Graduates will have a good understanding of knowledge from an array of different fields, as well as having important traits that will carry on for the rest of their
They end up being basically unsavory conclusions. For instance, Murray cites a primary counter-point that more individuals ought to get a liberal education through college. Murray consciously can't help contradicting this, saying, “More people should be getting the basics of a liberal education…the places to provide those basics are elementary and middle school,” (Murray 223). Likewise, he expresses that the larger part of individuals imagine that the motivation to attend a university is a result of the social standard of getting a BA will consequently secure a job. Murray states, "There has never been a period in history when individuals with abilities not taught in school have been at such request at such high pay as today, nor a period when the scope of jobs has been so wide… discovering the top notch talented work is hard," (Murray 236). By introducing the counter argument, Murray sets his point, saying that school is not for everyone, and social standards have changed the correct beliefs of
Are too many people pursuing a liberal studies degree when it is not necessary? When planning for the future, people need to be well educated about what they are about to be doing. People need to base their future stories on what will benefit them the most Charles Murray, the author of “Are Too Many People Going to College?”, seems to think to many people are going to college. In his article, he discusses many different points about why to many people are getting degrees. However, Murray’s text is ineffective because he is very vague, his points do not always correlate with each other, and he did not target a large enough audience.
A well-rounded education is very important and much supported. Two supporters are John Henry Newman and Paulo Freire. John Henry Newman was a professor at Oxford University and an Anglican minister that converted to Roman Catholicism and became a Pope. He delivered several lectures in Dublin, Ireland, about the importance of a Catholic education. These early lectures on education were revised and published in The Idea of a University. One of those lectures, “Knowledge Its Own End,” is about two distinct kinds of education (Austin, 53). Newman believed that there was a need for education purely for pleasure and education that is needed to pursue a specific career. Paulo Freire is a Brazilian literature professor and philosopher. Freire
Sanford Ungar has the right idea that more people should major in the liberal arts, and I definitely like how he put his essays into the “seven misconceptions.” It really made me think, and ask myself some questions about my major. He knew what he was doing whenever writing this essay, but what happens whenever everyone starts majoring in the “liberal arts?” It would not leave anyone else for anything else. That brings me into Charles Murray, and to an extent his opinions are my own, but some I could not fathom being okay with. I can support his idea about kindergarten through eight should learn the core knowledge, and high school should be left with most humanities and social science courses. It would lessen how long people need to attend college for their career. What I do not support is his idea of the lower percentile, there could be many intelligent people in that category that could change the world, but they did not show how much they could be valuable in their high school days. Some people could be genius in high school, but not so much in college, or vice versa. What would happen if the person that has what it takes to cure cancer, but no one listens to him because he was not “intelligent” enough to go to college? It would set the world back a few
Now, let us define liberal arts or liberal education. According to Michael Lind, liberal arts should be understood in its original sense as “elite skills” (54). We all know that liberal arts include cour...
...ens and nothing more or they may choose to oppose the game itself" (Page 11) It’s Shorris’s belief that with this accumulation of knowledge and exposure to new ways of thinking, that these students are prepared to enter the public world, communicate with the privileged world, and question the controlling world. His key claim is that education is a powerful weapon. It can be used as a form of attack (i.e. to uses their newly learnt knowledge to catch up to today’s political society) or defense (to protect themselves from the forces that make them poor), but beyond that it is a tool of hope. Instilling self-esteem, hope, and comprehending (all of which Shorris witnessed his students gain in just a few short months from October to May) through a liberal education, would be more of an advantage for the poor as a whole, then any other kind of learning one could provide.
Murray believes that students should receive a liberal education, yet they should not have to wait until college to do so (Murray 225). Murray states that a person should not be forced to obtain a college-level liberal education, simply because they are capable of doing so (Murray 228). On higher education, Murray says, “A large proportion of people who are theoretically able to absorb a liberal education have no interest in doing so.” (Murray 228). Regardless of the fact that a person fits the criteria enabling them to pursue a college degree, does not necessarily mean that they should, if they are not interested. It is more logical to teach students extensively before the time of college, instead of leaving out information and forcing them to attend a school (Murray 225). However, Addison disagrees with this ideology, and believes that a college education is essential to growing up.
Most people will readily agree that higher education is crucial to success although tremendously expensive in some cases. When it comes to the liberal
Murray states that people are going to college for the wrong reasons and a liberal education should be taught prior to attending college in elementary and middle school (Murray, 2008). Murray’s opinion that everyone attending or not attending college should already have that “liberal” education is a valid point. One is needed in order to choose a specific field of study and to excel at something. A liberal education should be the foundation and attending college should be geared toward one specific and loved profession. Depending on how people are raised from birth can decipher not only what type of work will entice them, but if they will develop a liberal education throughout their lives and school. Some people would say that going to college should be required to further your education and to gear and prepare people for a job. People misinterpret college for providing that liberal education piece that so many people are looking for. My father always said to me that he wanted me to be successful in life and love what I do for work. He also said that I would never “work” a day in my life if I loved what I did whether I were to go to college or
...s that you develop a way of regarding the information that you receive to the society that you are living in. He also believes that a quality education develops a students moral views and ability to think. And that these qualities are best developed in the traditional classroom setting by interaction between the student and their professors, and the student’s social life on campus, that is, their interaction with fellow students.
Public School Systems are cheating American kids out of an education. A high school diploma indicates what students learn in achieving it, but in reality students have been learning and earning greatly less as the years have gone by. As a former public school student myself, I know we are not given the same opportunities are students in private schools. Public school students have been told that the reason our education is limited is because of funding but in the video it states that public school spend more money than private schools and still not have a better outcome. More money hasn’t improved schools. So, what’s the real problem?
Modern day society is engrossed in a battle for protection of individual rights and freedoms from infringement by any person, be it the government or fellow citizens. Liberalism offers a solution to this by advocating for the protection of personal freedom. As a concept and ideology in political science, liberalism is a doctrine that defines the motivation and efforts made towards the protection of the aforementioned individual freedom. In the current society, the greatest feature of liberalism is the protection of individual liberty from intrusion or violation by a government. The activities of the government have, therefore, become the core point of focus. In liberalism, advocacy for personal freedom may translate to three ideal situations, based on the role that a government plays in a person’s life. These are no role, a limited role or a relatively large role. The three make up liberalism’s rule of thumb. (Van de Haar 1). Political theorists have