Would you rather be a bigger nerd or a better athlete? I bet the majority of you said athlete because that is what American culture is rooted in. However, in his article “America Needs Its Nerds” (1990) Leonid Fridman proposes that “For America’s sake the anti-intellectual values that pervade our society must be fought.” By first spelling out how the meaning of the terms geek and nerd are derogatory, and secondly, explaining how at prestigious colleges “nerds are ostracized while athletes are idolized” and third, describing how other countries treat the intellectually serious– hold them and teachers above athletes– Fridman accomplishes his task. Through his utilization definition, rhetorical question, and contrast, Fridman seeks to …show more content…
[Fridman contrasts the ideals of the nerd and of American culture by seeing how they stand up at one of the most prestigious academic institutions: Harvard.] Fridman proclaims that even at Harvard “there is a minority of undergraduates for whom pursuing knowledge is the top priority” (lines 15-17). Many Americans see Harvard as the college attended by the best of the brightest and would expect it to have a nerdy atmosphere, however this is not the case. It is a shocking revelation for Americans to learn how the anti-intellectual culture has seeped into every part of an American’s life: from kindergarten to college. Therefore, Fridman manipulates these perplexed and shocked emotions to prompt Americans to agree with him through his statement “enough is enough,” (line 29). Furthermore, he does this to demonstrate how Americans do not want to learn for the sake of learning and only desire to attend college so they can get a better job and make more money than valuing the education they are receiving. [At the end of the article, Fridman exercises a series of rhetorical questions to draw an extra emphasis on how nerds keep America a world superpower.] During paragraph eight Fridman proposes the question “How long can America
Leonid Fridman, in his work “America Needs Its Nerds”, argues that American society has a misaligned view on the value of education and intellectuals in comparison to social skills and physical abilities. Fridman juxtaposes the literal definition of a “geek” with the current American societal use of the term to emphasize America’s misconstrued comparison of an intellectual with a strong interest in education and knowledge to “a freak biting the head off a live chicken.” He continues on to contrast the unpretentious fame and respect that university faculty receive when compared to professional athletes in America to the overwhelming fame and respect that university faculty receive in “very few” countries. He continually focuses on the ostracization
In the article “Are Too Many People going to College?” Charles Murray argues that not everyone has the academic ability to go to college and only the top percentile of these people should attend college because they will actually understand the material and joy it. Although too many people are flooding colleges in order to achieve higher learning, Murray believes that most of these people should take a different career path and aspire to gain a skill in an industrial job.
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
In the essay “The Day the Purpose of College Changed,” Dan Berrett continuously insists how higher education has shifted from the fixation on liberal education to business and economics and utilizing other critic’s opinions on the ever growing career-based education. During the time of “economic ruin” (Berrett 64), Ronald Reagan suggested that “certain intellectual luxuries” (Berrett 65) could be cut from the budget due to his belief that the sole purpose of college should prepare students for jobs and the real world, rather than just sheer amusement (Berrett 65). Berrett as well acknowledged the views of liberals, such as Thomas Jefferson, who believed that liberal education would “strengthen democracy” (Berrett 66) while adhering to the opinion
In any country, there are intellectual people who strive to gain as much knowledge and information as possible and there are athletes who only care about winning the game. However, in America, society values and idolizes the strong athletes over the scholarly bookworms. In “America Needs Its Nerds,” Leonid Fridman develops his idea about society’s inaccurate and flawed system of values through the use of description and examples, comparisons, and rhetorical questions.
In The Basement of the Ivory Tower is a very illustrative and witty analysis that presents the idea that not everyone is suited for college. The author, who goes by the alias Professor X, presents himself as a man of scholar with the difficult task of teaching English to students he believes should not even be in college. He is an adjunct professor that teaches at two community colleges as a last resort. Throughout this article, he argues that there are too many unreachable students. During his efforts in exploring various strategies to help these students, he claims that they are deficient in ability to complete any college course—especially English. Overall, with a lack of statistics and research, Professor X utilizes his professional character by sharing multiple anecdotes that feebly argue higher education is simply not for everyone.
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.
What every American should know by Eric Liu thoroughly examines the issue of cultural literacy and its place in modern America. It takes on a convincing argument against E.D. Hirsch’s book on the same which included some 5000 things that he thought define cultural literacy and every American should know. Liu argues that America has changed over time, becoming more multicultural, and to capture the cultural literacy of the country, no one person should sit down and come up with what they think everyone else should know. Instead he suggests that in order to capture the view of the nation, every American should be involved in the making of the list. The most engaging part of this article is Liu’s idea that this new list that is crowd-sourced should always change according to the times. It should not be cast in stone because things in this day and age change really fast; what is a hit this month will be old news in the next one. This is what cultural literacy really is; keeping up with what is going on around you and being open to learn new things as they emerge. This can also be said of education; in order to stay educated in any field, you have to be in the know of in terms of new developments.
When people hear the term “Ivy League school”, they oftentimes think of a prestigious, high ranked college where extremely intelligent, well-rounded individuals go to shape themselves into an efficient member of society. However, a piece published by William Deresiewicz called “Don’t Send Your Kids to the Ivy League” does exactly the opposite, as Deresiewicz, a former 8 year Yale professor, criticizes Ivy League schools for being too constricting and not allowing their students to be themselves and come out to be a well-rounded efficient member of society. Deresiewicz is an award winning essayist and critic, as well as a frequent college speaker, and the best selling author of the 2014 novel “Excellent Sheep,” which also criticizes the roles of major Ivy League schools relating to American society. The main theme of “Don’t Send Your Kids to the Ivy League” is to convey the message to parents that contrary to popular belief, Ivy League schools do not always create perfect, well rounded individuals, and Deresiewicz uses his years of experience at Yale and the years he attended Columbia to back up his claims that sending away your kids to the Ivy League is not always the best choice.
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.
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
As a high school senior, the pressure to pick the school that will provide me with both a good social and academic experience is on. For someone like me, I would be content with going to a good state school to save money. But for other students, Ivy League is the only option. These same students and their parents strongly believe that an Ivy League education is the principal to the finest opportunities in life. William Deresiewicz claims they do not give a remarkable social experience nor do they allow room for students to think themselves. In his article, “ Don’t Send Your Kids to the Ivy Leagues”, he uses his status and personal anecdotes to persuade the reader of just that.
A college education is valuable and its quality is of the highest importance to most Americans. In his essay, “On the Uses of a Liberal Education: As Lite Entertainment for Bored College Students,” Mark Edmundson utilizes ethos, pathos, and logos to effectively deliver his argument that the current educational system, especially in college, revolves around consumerism which in turn has negatively impacted students, teachers, and universities in general. However, although Edmundson presents an overall logically sound argument, there are few instances throughout the article that may hinder the reliability of his claims to the audience.
No one can deny the social segregation between nerds and athletes. We see it in the media and reality. Most turn a blind eye to this social occurrence, some put an emphasis towards it. A passionate writer by the name of Leonid Fridman wrote a passage titled, “America Needs Its Nerds,” which expands upon our nation’s social treatment of scholars. Fridman emphasizes the need of individuals who place their focus on learning to help advance our country versus one focusing on less important aspects such as athletics. Fridman uses dramatic tone and ethos to convey to his readers how “geeks and nerds” are undermined instead of admired in our society.
At the beginning of the essay, the writer expresses the difficulties experienced by high-school graduates in gaining admission to universities, nowadays. She states,” College as America used to understand it is coming to an end” through Rick Perlstein (Addison 3). To show contrast between the past and modern days, Addison brings another character to the scene. She states that Perlstein had a ‘beatnik’ friend alongside him. The term ‘beatnik’ makes reference to a person of the artistic Beat generation of the 1950s and 60s. During that period, college education, offered in universities, was highly regarded. To further her argument, she claims that admission to universities, nowadays, relies solely on their Curricula Vitae.