A Critical and Rhetorical Analysis of William Cronon's Only Connect.

Deresiewicz believes that “The purpose of education in a neoliberal age is to produce producers.”(1) In his introduction, Deresiewicz compares the ideologies of colleges from the 1920s to today’s thoughts. He concluded that “College is seldom about thinking or learning anymore.”(1) He also believes that there is only one value of education now and that is commercial. The other values are tolerated only when they pertain to commercial value. With the new beliefs in neoliberalism, Deresiewicz determines that “The world is not going to change, so we don’t need young people to imagine how it might.”(3) This leads to education just being about information rather than free thinking. He then goes into discussing how there are others who have come to the realization that not everyone can have high paying jobs as well. Deresiewicz concludes that students only care about the skills needed to start their career not obtaining general knowledge. Colleges teach their students to be leaders for their own benefit not the benefit of others. The neoliberal society, Deresiewicz believes, has begun to give students “a sense of helplessness”(5) so they have no

Edmundson, Mark. "On the Uses of a Liberal Education." From Inquiry to Academic Writing: A Text and a Reader. Ed. Stuart Greene and April Lidindsky. Bedford/ St. Martin’s: New York, 2008. 322-337. Print

Higher education in modern day America has become a debated topic, with some saying that it is not worth it due to the debt it leaves upon leaving, and some saying that it opens opportunities that surpass the results of obtaining one. A resulting view from this conflict is that certain forms of education aren’t as beneficial as others. A primary example of one of these less valuable educations is the study of Liberal Arts. Author Sanford J. Ungar discredits this view in his article The New Liberal Arts where he discusses the many misconceptions that have come to form this interpretation. To convince the reader of these misunderstandings, Ungar uses the appeals of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, with heavy appeal to logic (Logos) over the other two. Each misconception uses and focuses on more of one appeal than others, and by doing this, he is very successful in influencing the reader into considering that these misunderstandings are present.

In William Cronon’s Only Connect, Cronon discusses what it means to be liberally educated and why it is a good thing. Cronon explains that he believes that liberal education helps human talent grow, therefore it states that he believes the main goals of getting a liberal education is freedom and growth.

Published in Harper's Magazine’s September 1997 issue, Mark Edmundson’s essay, “On the Uses of Liberal Education: As Lite Entertainment for Bored College Students,” presents a very personal argument for an apparent crisis in liberal education–the lack of passion in students. According to Edmundson, a professor at the University of Virginia, “liberal-arts education is as ineffective as it is now…[because] university culture, like American culture writ large, is, to put it crudely, ever more devoted to consumption and entertainment, to the using and using up of goods and images” (723). He believes that consumer culture is responsible for students’ dispassionate attitude towards his class because they view liberal education as a paid service or product that should cater to their wishes. Further, he writes that universities feed into consumer culture, maintaining a “relationship with students [that] has a solicitous, nearly servile tone” (725). In this way, Edmundson lays out the reasons for why he thinks liberal education is failing.

In the 1997 article, “On The Uses of a Liberal Education: As a Weapon In the Hands of the Restless Poor,” published by Harper’s Magazine, the social critic Earl Shorris described how political power could be achieved by a rather non-vocational educational discipline, the humanities. He emphasizes on how the knowledge of a liberal Education can be used as a form of weapon within the lives for the poor.

The essay “A New Liberal Arts,” which was written by Sanford Ungar, first appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education on March 5, 2010. In his essay, Ungar uses many different rhetorical strategies to convince his reader that a degree in the liberal arts is not a lost cause but can actually be very beneficial and lead to success. In Ungar’s opinion, there are many wrong ideas and misunderstandings about the usefulness of a degree in the liberal arts. In the essay there are seven specific misperceptions that he addresses specifically. By listing out these misperceptions, Ungar is addressing them individually in order to give each one proper attention. He offers explanations to why people may think these things and why he believes that they are incorrect. Ungar’s use of style, format, and emotional and logical arguments help him to create a persuasive and influential essay for his audience and convince them to agree with his opinion.

He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Yale College, and during his time there he was in various political organizations. He also received a degree in government at Harvard University. He wrote this essay to convince the American people that a more general education such as liberal arts has more productive outcomes. He is trying to reach the American population, so that they can change the educational system. He tries to connect to them by giving examples such as Mark Zuckerberg’s success through liberal arts and statistics on countries with a liberal arts education versus those with a skill-based education.

The question at hand is, should all of those who have the academic ability to absorb a college level liberal education get one? Murray’s point through out his essay is not to discredit eduction, it is simply to question if the traditional path of obtaining a degree is necessary for all career paths. He uses the persuasion technique of credibility to back this claim by citing E.D. Hirsch Jr.’s book, Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. Hirsch’s book hits three main points which are that full participation in any culture requires familiarity with a core body of knowledge. This core knowledge is an important part of the

In his work entitled “The Shock of Education: How College Corrupts”, journalist and author Alfred Lubrano poses the question of how receiving education can lead to a harsh reality. Lubrano explains that as a child works toward a higher education, there are certain aspects of life they are forced to leave behind as they enter into a new existence. According to Lubrano’s statement, “At night, at home, the differences in the Columbia experiences my father and I were having was becoming more evident” (532). Additionally, Lubrano states, “We talked about general stuff, and I learned to self-censor. I’d seen how ideas could be upsetting, especially when wielded by a smarmy freshman who barely knew what he was talking about” (533). In answering this question, Lubrano must explore the types of conversations that occurred with other family members, the disconnection from his peers, and how segregating himself from his family

Mark Edmundson, the author of “On the Uses of a Liberal Education”, is an English teacher at the University of Virginia who expresses his concerns about the trajectory of the universities and colleges in America. Edmundson depicts how college students today have “little fire, little passion to be found,” towards their classes (4). In an effort to find the source of this lack of passion, Edmundson describes contacting other professors about this issue while refining his own ideas. Ultimately, Edmundson comes to a conclusion. He believes that the consumer mindset of college students has hindered American universities as a whole. My target audience is my professor, Professor Chezik. Looking closely at his wording, formation of sentences, and idea structure, one can see a recurring theme throughout Edmundson’s essay. Edmundson uses fragments, specifically at the beginning of his paragraphs, to start his point, pose counter arguments, and to have a poetic refrain.

To discuss the value of liberal education, there should be a mutual understanding that investing in college means to invest in oneself. Furthermore, while some consider this investment to be a critical stepping stone to success, others dismiss it, explaining that school simply cannot prepare someone for the “real world.” Sanford J. Ungar and Robert Reich explore both of these subjective values in their essays “The New Liberal Arts” and “College is a Ludicrous Waste of Money.” Ungar, the president of Goucher College in Baltimore, Maryland, discusses why a liberal education should be sought after; he does so by introducing common misconceptions about liberal arts and, using argumentative persuasion, proves their insignificance. On the other hand, Reich, the former secretary of labor, argues against the conventional belief of college being the only road to financial wellbeing; rather, he explains why a two-year education may better accommodate many college students, especially those in need of immediate work or those that simply cannot afford a four-year education. In all, although both Reich and Ungar generally discuss liberal education, their perspectives differ when it comes to its practicality in the current economy. Also, to express their different views about liberal arts, the authors use contrasting tones to present their ideas to different intended audiences.

ABSTRACT: An international conference that takes Philosophy Educating Humanity as its theme does well to revisit the liberal arts tradition. Although the liberal arts are most often assimilated to studies brought together as the Humanities, the old usage included the arts which employed artificial languages in mathematics, music, and astronomy, as well as the literature and letters of the various natural languages. The current conflation of liberal education with the humanities does violence to the historical tradition in education, reducing it to fluff in the eyes of tough-minded scientists who know that only numbers deliver objectivity. The liberal arts of the traditional undergraduate

Introductions can range anywhere from a few, simple sentences to paragraphs of intense information. The introductory Preface of Henry Adams’s work, The Education of Henry Adams, is a section that insists on one’s attention and care. It presents an explanation of and questions on what the main concern of the following sections is. The Preface informs that education is the central focus within his book, but also prompts confusion. He causes the reader to take the time to ask: which factors of education are useful, and which are not? Are there differences in how education is fit upon every unique person? How is education viewed by Adams, and does this perspective change over the course of his life? Does the modification of his viewpoint change not only his main character’s experiences, but also his own character? Is education something to dread or something to desire? The Preface is the source of confusion in his work, and the subsequent sections of Adams’s piece – “Harvard College,” “The Dynamo and the Virgin,” and “Vis Inertiae” – answer these questions and more through his analysis of education and the effect it has on students.

In my sophomore writing class at Appalachian State University we read four texts dealing with the subject of education that helped me to reflect upon my own experiences. These were Henry Adams’ “Harvard College” from The Education of Henry Adams, Paulo Freire’s “The ‘Banking’ Concept of Education” from Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Susan Griffin’s “Our Secret,” and Mary Louise Pratt’s “Arts of the Contact Zone.”