An Analysis Of Mr. Murray, What Is A Practical Education

1099 Words 5 Pages
In his op- ed essay titled, What is a Practical Education? Mr. Murray hopes to convince the reader that universities who narrow or exclude liberal arts and general education courses are on the rise. Thus, the inevitable result will be a direct path to producing workers for a specific job, in a specific field and will not be able to adapt to changes that will inevitably come. Although he himself is a professor and should have first-hand knowledge of statistics that would answer key questions such as, What do students do when they graduate? Likewise, did they find a job in their field and how long did it take students to find gainful employment? Murray does not answer these questions and essentially leaves the reader wondering what exactly is …show more content…
Murray is a professor at the University of New Hampshire, where he teaches vocational courses within journalism. Ethos is used effectively here, for example, by telling the reader he is a professor at the University, and how long he has been instructing students, the reader knows they are hearing from someone who should have authority on the subject. Additionally, Murray gives the reader his brief opinion that the conflict between general education and the liberal arts is something that has always existed within the state university, but provides no data to support his theory. Coupled with dramatic language to insert more passion into his argument, through his use of words and phrases such as, "little security, successful survivors, forces within universities oppose general education, pressure from employers, de-emphasize liberal arts and theoretical science courses and enormous pressure. the reader sees this as a conflict that needs a resolution, but Murray provides no path in which to see it resolved. In like manner, Murray says, “...increasingly, the forces within universities across the country that speak out for specific education and oppose general education have become stronger.” (75) Again, Murray doesn’t specify who the “forces” are, nor what they are saying to convince those with decision-making authority that their vision of a college education is the one that should be given strongest …show more content…
The student needs to know why as much as what, the reasons that lie below the daily job.” (76) He emphasizes the value in training across disciplines, even stronger when he states, “Our students should be able to put their job, their evolving beliefs, their votes in context. We need university-educated leaders who can see their decisions as part of a historical, sociological, political, aesthetic, scientific, philosophical context.”

Related Documents