The high school I attended is in a suburban area where the majority of the students are African Americans and the majority of the teachers are white. My college prep teachers didn’t care about teaching because the students didn’t care about learning. Being a student that did actually care about learning I decided to take Advanced placement and honors classes. Since the majority of the students that took those types of classes were the minorities of the school; whites, Asians, and Indians. I wasn’t taken seriously as a black student in the advanced classes. I didn’t fit in with my college prep peers and I didn’t fit in with the advanced placement students. My education consisted of confused stares and not so subtle comments about “where I belonged”
…show more content…
Deresiewicz’s claims in the article that college isn’t about learning, it’s about making money. According to Deresiewicz “Elite American universities no longer provide their students with a real education, as one that addresses them as complete human beings rather than as future specialists that enables them, as I put it, to build a self or soul”(26). In other words the main value of education is how much money is put into education which is an example of Neoliberalism. Colleges support majors that have definite jobs after graduation so the world will have more producers. Deresiewicz asserts that colleges don’t support the more creative majors like anthropology or art because those types of majors don’t benefit the …show more content…
Deresiewicz’s assumptions are controversial because he blames elite universities for bringing the neoliberal concepts into the classrooms. In the article “How College Sold its Soul and Surrendered to the Market” Deresiewicz outlines several examples of professors, presidents, and deans opposing views. Deresiewicz’s assumptions are also censorious because, again he blames the elite universities for the marketplace involvement in the students learning. John Taylor Gatto’s assumptions are based off his experiences as an educator. Gatto’s assumptions are valid from a teacher’s perspective. He has also had experience in some of the worst schools and some of the best schools so his assumptions aren’t bias. Gatto explains why we don’t need school be we need education. He makes valid points about homeschoolers doing perfectly fine academically without the restraint of the school
Deresiewicz’s claims in the article that college isn’t about learning, it’s about making money. According to Deresiewicz “Elite American universities no longer provide their students with a real education, as one that addresses them as complete human beings rather than as future specialists that enables them, as I put it, to build a self or soul”(26). In other words the main value of education is how much money is put into education which is an example of Neoliberalism. Colleges support majors that have definite jobs after graduation so the world will have more producers. Deresiewicz asserts that colleges don’t support the more creative majors like anthropology or art because those types of majors don’t benefit the …show more content…
Deresiewicz’s assumptions are controversial because he blames elite universities for bringing the neoliberal concepts into the classrooms. In the article “How College Sold its Soul and Surrendered to the Market” Deresiewicz outlines several examples of professors, presidents, and deans opposing views. Deresiewicz’s assumptions are also censorious because, again he blames the elite universities for the marketplace involvement in the students learning. John Taylor Gatto’s assumptions are based off his experiences as an educator. Gatto’s assumptions are valid from a teacher’s perspective. He has also had experience in some of the worst schools and some of the best schools so his assumptions aren’t bias. Gatto explains why we don’t need school be we need education. He makes valid points about homeschoolers doing perfectly fine academically without the restraint of the school