Rhetorical Analysis Of Dr. Gerald Graff's Hidden Intellectualism

Senior year I was trying to puzzle together this geometry problem in my mind. I couldn’t figure it out, I felt like I hit a brick wall and couldn’t break through it to solve the problem. Maybe if I reworded the problem to be similar to a real world situation I could solve it. In the essay “Hidden Intellectualism” by Gerald Graff, his thesis is that intellectualism is more valuable than academic intelligence. Graff begins talking about how schools fail to reach into the minds of kids who are street smart and connect that into their academic school work. He states that students would be more willing to take the academic intellectual characteristic if the schools would engage them into subjects they are interested in, rather than what the teachers think. Graff then opens up to a personal

In the world of academia, from Graff’s perspective, street smarts are associated with anti-intellectualism. Graff states “we associate the educated life, the life of the mind, too narrowly and exclusively with subjects and texts that we consider inherently weighty an academic.” He argues that educators should broaden their aspect of material they once preserved as inefficient. Graff implies that a person who is studious enough can find substance in any content. He reasons that intellect can be uncovered and observed in various forms, hence the name “hidden intellectualism.” He suggests that the Education system overlooks the interest of the students because they consider their interest irrelevant.

Gerald Graff’s article “Hidden Intellectualism” asserts that academic settings, such as public schools, need to incorporate students’ personal interests into the school policy so that students are more inclined to engage in an academic mindset. The problem, however, is that the school systems do not attempt to tie non-academic material with academic assignments, therefore neglecting students the opportunity to engage in intriguing, intellectual conversation (Graff 245). Targeting students, educators, and administrators, Graff makes an effective explicit, qualified claim of policy as he utilizes the rhetorical strategies of ethos, logos, and pathos.

The issue being debated in the article “Hidden Intellectualism” by Gerald Graff is street smarts versus book smarts. Gerald Graff is an English professor at the University of Illinois and has written many books. The author claims that people are better off if they are more street smart than book smart. The authors is very persuasive using real life examples. I although disagree with this claim. I think that you need an equal mix of both street and book smarts.

“Hidden Intellectualism,” an excerpt from They Say/I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing by Gerald Graff, explains the importance of having diverse intellectualism and helping the kids with street smart intellectualism turn it into academic growth. The author’s claim in this excerpt is that school and colleges are missing out on an opportunity of helping the street smart kids grow their intelligence into good academic work. The significance in the author’s claim is that the students who believe they don’t have much of an opportunity in school or other things related to academics, realize they do.

Graff shares with us his personal experiences on how reading intellectually converted him from being street smart to book smart. Graff now urges colleges and schools to teach students the importance of reading intellectually as well as writing. "If I am right, then schools and colleges are missing an opportunity when they do not encourage students to take their nonacademic interests as objects of academic study. It is self defeating to decline to introduce any text or subject that figures to engage students who will otherwise tune out academic work entirely" (Graff, 270). By this, Gerald Graff means schools should encourage students to take their areas of interest and apply them to their education. All in hopes that students will one day feel comfortable enough to step outside

Within our society, there is a growing anti-intellectual sentiment. Bradbury’s book explores the idea of anti-intellectualism through the values of the society of Fahrenheit 451. The society of Bradbury’s novel began to gravitate away from intellectual pursuits and became “runners, jumpers, racers, tinkerers, grabbers, snatchers, fliers, and swimmers instead of examiners, critics, knowers, and imaginative creators, the word 'intellectual,' of course, became the swear word it deserved to be” (Bradbury 55). The desire to become educated and informed simply is outweighed by the struggle one must undergo to do so. For the average citizen of Fahrenheit 451, and indeed for that of our modern day and age, action is easier than thought. The attitude is reflected in student athletes or should I say, athlete students, specifically in America. High schools

In Hidden Intellectualism by Gerald Graff, he begins with the argument of “street-smarts” versus “school-smarts”. Graff explains that school-smarts can be hidden within street smarts and can be learnt through not just talking with friends, but also from the media and our surroundings, hence the “hidden” intellectualism. He goes onto explain that “schools and colleges overlook the intellectual potential of street-smarts” (198) because these types of intellectualism are actually considered anti-intellectualism. Graff then begins to discuss that intellectualism is often looked down upon within schools, and people that are considered “school-smart” are seen as nerdy, or boring. We learn that as a child, Graff was afraid of bullying and

Most people, when asked, say that a person is intelligent if they have “book smarts.” People that are book smart can write and converse about subjects taught in school. On the other hand, people with “street smarts” aren’t seen as intellectuals because the subjects they are knowledgeable about are not traditional. In his essay called “Hidden Intellectualism,” Gerald Graff insists that schools and colleges are missing an opportunity to translate street smarts into academic work.

When it comes to the topic of hidden intellectualism, most of us will readily agree that a lot of students are seen to have an issue with it. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of is it the students fault. Whereas some are convinced it is, others maintain it is at the fault of the teachers or professors. Gerald Graff has his argument that in many cases book smarts can be hidden in street smarts. I believe that kids that struggle with their talents being hidden behind “street smarts” need a certain amount of attention and focus to help them acquire their abilities and strengths.

“Hidden Intellectualism” an article written by Gerald Graff is a very interesting piece of writing intended for the audience of high school and college educators. Throughout the text Graff argues that high schools and colleges are failing to incorporate topics that interest street smart students into the school system, which is therefore resulting in street smart students failing to do well academically in high school and college. He uses his own personal anecdote to support this. Graff successfully persuades his audience that high school and colleges can develop a student’s intellectualism by using topics that already interests students. He successfully does this through the use of development, conventions, and evidence.

Co-author of “They Say/I Say” handbook, Gerald Graff, analyzes in his essay “Hidden Intellectualism” that “street smarts” can be used for more efficient learning and can be a valuable tool to train students to “get hooked on reading and writing” (Graff 204). Graff’s purpose is to portray to his audience that knowing more about cars, TV, fashion, and etc. than “academic work” is not the detriment to the learning process that colleges and schools can see it to be (198). This knowledge can be an important teaching assistant and can facilitate the grasping of new concepts and help to prepare students to expand their interests and write with better quality in the future. Graff clarifies his reasoning by indicating, “Give me the student anytime

Many intelligent kids are being overlooked because of the stigma of being a “nerd,” as well as the fact that anti-intellectualism is becoming more popular. A man, author Grant Penrod, wrote “Anti-Intellectualism: Why We

Mary Sherry makes a valid argument in “ In Praise of the F Word”. As a staff writer for Newsweek and a teacher of adult literacy programs, she claims the problem lies, not in the environmental factors affecting children while in school, but in the educational system and its impeding falsehoods when aiding students that have now come back to haunt graduates. According to Sherry, the meritocracy that had once reigned supreme in the classroom, has now shifted to a form of passive learning. Sherry suggests that everyone in society “excuses” poor behavior in school by saying “kids can’t learn if they come from a terrible environment”.

The hierarchical power relationship between the authoritarian teacher and students inherently stands in opposition to the equality of intelligence. Probing further in the direction of intelligence, authority is constructed on the ground of a certain form of inequality between who is intelligent and who is not (Tocqueville et al., 2000). This premise of inequality in intelligence is enacted throughout the educational process in traditional teaching. According to Rancière (1991), the “pedagogical myth” divides intelligence into two, a superior intelligence and an inferior one (p.7). “The superior intelligence knows things by reason, proceeds by method, from the simple to the complex, from the part to the whole”, whereas the inferior intelligence “registers perceptions by chance, retains them, interprets and repeats them empirically, within the closed circle of habit and need” (ibid.). An authoritarian teacher may take this binary conception of intelligence for granted, maintaining that s/he has a superior intelligence while students have an inferior one. S/he is likely to present him/herself as the necessary opposite of the students. By considering the students as less intelligent beings with immature minds, s/he claims his or her own superior intelligence: s/he is the one being capable of opening the curtains that hide the true meaning of the knowledge. S/he attempts to convince his or her students that s/he has direct access to the knowledge.