The Neoliberal Arts

In September of 2015, Harper’s Magazine published William Deresiewicz’s essay The Neoliberal Arts: How colleges have sold their soul to the market. In this essay, Deresiewicz discusses how colleges have changed their mindset over the last century and how the world’s new neoliberal thinking has changed higher education for the worse.

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.

Andrew Simmons published his article for The Atlantic, “The Danger of Telling Poor Kids that College is the Key to Social Mobility” on January 16, 2014, which raises his concerns that higher education is only being promoted as an opportunity to increase their economic status, when it should be an opportunity to experience an education (Simmons). Through the use of students such as Isabella, Simmons disagrees with the way students now look at higher education and blames the educators through the students’ lives for this view. Instead, Simmons views education as an intellectual opportunity rather than a way to elevate ones economic class which is all people see when they see “higher education.” He believes that education, ambition and work ethic is how you have a satisfying life, not with how much you make. He makes the point that when economics becomes the main goal of education it’s all children begin to think about and they might not pursue something that they are truly passionate about or what they want to learn about, which then does not create an intellectually awakening experience (Simmons).

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.

One view that Ungur argues is false in Misperception No. 1 and 7 is that with the increasing prices of higher education in America, a liberal arts education isn’t as relevant in society due to the cost and that it has become a luxury to obtain, and students should focus on “career educations”. He does this by taking an Logos appeal, arguing that demand of liberal arts education will increase in the workplace in order to understand “the complex influences that shape the world we live in”. He states that a liberal arts education isn’t as

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.

When Shorris explains his goal to the prospective students he indicates, “You’ve been cheated. Rich people learn the humanities; you didn’t. The humanities are a foundation for getting along in the world, for thinking, for learning to reflect on the world instead of just reaction to whatever force is turned against you.”(Page 4) That the rich have had the opportunity to buy that type of learning and embrace it, while the poor have had more things to deal with like getting food on the table from day to day. Therefore, Shorris believes that a liberal education will provide poor students with a new kind of lens to outlook the world. With the knowledge of philosophy, poetry, art history, logic and American history, Shorris trusts that these students will begin to uncover hidden talents and interests that will inspire them and help them to not only solve problems, but also seek plausible solutions. He believes that these qualities would provide the poor with an escape route from the ongoing cycle that have them trapped and it will provide them with “a certain kind of life, a richness of mind and spirit.” (Page 5) After his first thriving year teaching this class, sixteen of his prospective students completed the course, which then some went on to universities.

College offers a wide variety of educational aspects. In “Why America’s Obsession with STEM is Dangerous,” Fareed Zakaria explains the issues involving the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) educational system and explains the need for a liberal educational system. Zakaria says we need more creative, innovative, and critical thinkers, which can be achieved through a liberal education. He also says that we need the skills that come with a STEM education, but those can also be achieved through liberal education. A narrow study helps you receive a specific job, but a broad education allows you to explore the economical depths of work. Fareed Zakaria’s essay exemplifies rhetorical strategies and the three means of persuasion

“What Is College For” by Andrew Delbanco, shows the need for both a universal college system; one which caters for all of society, and one which provides a liberal education. Delbanco gives many reasoned thoughts on how, and why the college system has become restricted, to purely those of a higher socio-economic background, rather than being exclusive to people of all backgrounds. The idea of college being a platform for people to learn, advance their skills, and become whatever they want to be has seemingly diminished over time. The ideas in favor of such an educational system are put forward, but they are foreshadowed in my opinion, by the notion that people should have the same educational opportunities in life; regardless of their economic or social background. A universal education system is needed for our society to prosper, especially if it provides a liberal education; this is not just for the individuals that make up a community, but for the community, as a whole.

Andrew Delbanco’s essay “A college Education: What is its purpose?” gives three reasons why college still matters. Delbanco teaches at Columbia University, where he’s the director of American studies and has written several books on the meaning and benefits of college. Delbanco, begins his essay by discussing what college means to each individual student. He states, “For many more students, college means the anxious pursuit of marketable skills in overcrowded, under resourced institutions. For still others, it means traveling by night to a fluorescent office building or to a “virtual classroom” that only exists in cyberspace.” (1) Delbano successfully uses pathos to appeal to his audience’s emotions, his personal experience and anecdotal combine to persuade his readers to consider or realize the importance of receiving a college education, however his essay contains minor flaws that can counteract his claims.

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.

Caroline Bird’s essay “College is a Waste of Time and Money” explains her beliefs on why, for some people, going to college is an ineffective and inefficient use of their time. She states that many students do not belong in college because they are there for the wrong reasons and they are not happy learning. She also gives evidence to suggest that going to college and getting a degree does not actually allows a person to make more money in their life time. Her final claim is that college does not prepare most students for the real world and the jobs they will have once they graduate.

Nowadays, seniors students in high school are qualified to graduate and peregrinate to college to get a degree for their future jobs. There is an author, Pharinet, who verbally expresses that, “That there are too many students enrolled in school who simply don’t belong there” (680). Pharinet says that in her article, “Is College for Everyone?” She argues that college is not for everyone and that students should think deeply afore enrolling. She claims that students who are not academically ready and financially stable are the most mundane in college. Pharinet commences her credibility (ethos), logically (logos), and emotionally (pathos) with broad facts and statistics, a real-life situation, and word of mouth on why college is not for everyone.

The article of “ In the Basement of the Ivory Tower” really remind me to considered plenty of things that I have never been thinking about before. In my mind, pursuing and accomplishing a higher level of education is always good for people. However, the view that the Professor X raised is a very sharp phenomenon buy it does exists in our society. In the article he questioned whether it is necessary for everyone to get higher education or not. It seems that as far as Professor X concerned, some of those students who are just waste of time and money by taking college education. He exposed that many colleges nowadays are bend to financial profits rather than to provide a high quality education. What is more, some of the students are not that well prepared for their college study and many of them cannot pass his class.

In the article, “College is a Waste of Time and Money”, Caroline Bird explains why higher education is not always the right choice for students after high school. The author believes that students do not come to the decision to attend college on their own but they are expected to and pressured by parents, advisors, and society. In the beginning of the article the author argues that colleges use techniques to sell themselves just like any other product on the market. They advertise what they have to offer and tell students what they want to hear. She also feels that campuses, stemming from the riots in the 1960’s, have started to