America Needs Its Nerds By Leonid Fridman

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The first comparison Fridman makes is that most countries in the world, including “all our economic rivals in East Asia,” (38) favor intellectualism over anti-intellectualism. He states that America is one of the very few countries who prefer athletes over scholarly students. By using this comparison, the readers will understand that America can not beat its rivals unless it better appreciates the academics over the jocks like most industrialized nations do. The second comparison Fridman makes is how unlike in America, many other parts of the world value university professors as one of the most renowned and respected professions. However, in America, professional athletes are much more admired and receive better pay than workers at some of the finest universities. With the aid of these comparisons, the readers will hopefully understand that America is falling behind and does not have its values lined up with other industrialized and advanced nations, and in turn change their view about the geeks and nerds of the

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 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.

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

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.