Register to read the introduction…
Graff then reveals the logical conclusion behind his adolescent story, “I see now that in the interminable analysis of sports teams, movies, and toughness…I was practicing being an intellectual before I knew that was what I wanted to be” (383). Through the analysis of street smart subjects, Graff discovers the basics of critical thinking. Thus, Graff is living proof that street smarts have intellectual depth. This in turn, reinforces the reader’s earlier insights and solidifies Graff’s argument by molding credibility with logic. After furnishing his proof, Graff compares his favorite adolescent subject, sports, to that of typical academics.
…show more content…
Looking back, Graff realizes that sports are actually more intellectual than school because they are full of debates, analytical problems, and relevant statistics. Thus, Graff logically concludes that street smarts can satisfy the intellectual thirst better than school, since they are more compelling and real. Moreover, they also satisfy the thirst for community, one beyond that of friends and family. Graff supports this claim by pointing out that sports are a national discussion, a public argument that transcends the individual and allows for any strangers to be part of something bigger (384). It is a compelling argument that logically demonstrates how sports can satisfy a thirst for intellectualism and community, while inspiring feelings of desire or pride to be part of something bigger. Graff then reaffirms his belief that schools are at fault, not for failing to achieve Super Bowl success, but rather for not attempting to exploit elements of sports that could compete for his youthful attention. Especially, since Graff dramatically reveals that the real intellectual world, the one outside of school, is organized a lot like the world of team sports (384). Thus, Graff effectively inspires an emotional response from his reader; a response that he builds upon with more negative connotations about schools, but that are presented in a fair and credible manner. Graff concedes that the academic world is not without competition, but unfortunately it is individualistic and comprised of the less appealing aspects of sports (385). Adding it all up, Graff emotionally primes his readers to accept that schools are at fault and that they should help bridge the gap from one argument culture to another. Following this emotional appeal, Graff reminds his readers that sports are only one of the many potential methods to help literacy training and that they are all underestimated by educators (385). However, instead of continuing to emotionally bash schools and educators, Graff defends their position by illustrating the down falls of using these alternative subjects. This is an effective and important tactic to maintain credibility, especially considering that educators are Graff’s target audience. Therefore, Graff logically explains that there is no proven connection between a student’s interest in a subject and the quality of the academic work that follows. In fact, Graff explains it best in the following quote: “For students who get excited about the chance to write about their passion for cars will often write as poorly and unreflectively on the topic as on Shakespeare or Plato” (385). Thus, Graff admits that street smart subjects are useful for getting a student’s attention but that it is not going to help them to write a reflective and analytical essay. In an attempt to give his audience a chance to right the wrongs of their colleagues, Graff echoes a challenge put forth by college professor Ned Laff, who said, “[The Challenge] is not simply to exploit students’ nonacademic interests, but to get them to see those interests through academic eyes” (385). By doing this, Graff is metaphorically asking his fellow educators to pick up the torch and rise to the challenge. The beauty of this emphatic request is that Graff’s readers have to believe and agree with him, since this is basically their passion and mission as educators. Therefore, they are likely to not only believe Graff, but even champion his cause. In his closing remarks, Graff once again makes a slight stumble. He begins his final paragraph with, “If I am right, then schools and colleges are missing an
Looking back, Graff realizes that sports are actually more intellectual than school because they are full of debates, analytical problems, and relevant statistics. Thus, Graff logically concludes that street smarts can satisfy the intellectual thirst better than school, since they are more compelling and real. Moreover, they also satisfy the thirst for community, one beyond that of friends and family. Graff supports this claim by pointing out that sports are a national discussion, a public argument that transcends the individual and allows for any strangers to be part of something bigger (384). It is a compelling argument that logically demonstrates how sports can satisfy a thirst for intellectualism and community, while inspiring feelings of desire or pride to be part of something bigger. Graff then reaffirms his belief that schools are at fault, not for failing to achieve Super Bowl success, but rather for not attempting to exploit elements of sports that could compete for his youthful attention. Especially, since Graff dramatically reveals that the real intellectual world, the one outside of school, is organized a lot like the world of team sports (384). Thus, Graff effectively inspires an emotional response from his reader; a response that he builds upon with more negative connotations about schools, but that are presented in a fair and credible manner. Graff concedes that the academic world is not without competition, but unfortunately it is individualistic and comprised of the less appealing aspects of sports (385). Adding it all up, Graff emotionally primes his readers to accept that schools are at fault and that they should help bridge the gap from one argument culture to another. Following this emotional appeal, Graff reminds his readers that sports are only one of the many potential methods to help literacy training and that they are all underestimated by educators (385). However, instead of continuing to emotionally bash schools and educators, Graff defends their position by illustrating the down falls of using these alternative subjects. This is an effective and important tactic to maintain credibility, especially considering that educators are Graff’s target audience. Therefore, Graff logically explains that there is no proven connection between a student’s interest in a subject and the quality of the academic work that follows. In fact, Graff explains it best in the following quote: “For students who get excited about the chance to write about their passion for cars will often write as poorly and unreflectively on the topic as on Shakespeare or Plato” (385). Thus, Graff admits that street smart subjects are useful for getting a student’s attention but that it is not going to help them to write a reflective and analytical essay. In an attempt to give his audience a chance to right the wrongs of their colleagues, Graff echoes a challenge put forth by college professor Ned Laff, who said, “[The Challenge] is not simply to exploit students’ nonacademic interests, but to get them to see those interests through academic eyes” (385). By doing this, Graff is metaphorically asking his fellow educators to pick up the torch and rise to the challenge. The beauty of this emphatic request is that Graff’s readers have to believe and agree with him, since this is basically their passion and mission as educators. Therefore, they are likely to not only believe Graff, but even champion his cause. In his closing remarks, Graff once again makes a slight stumble. He begins his final paragraph with, “If I am right, then schools and colleges are missing an