Teaching is an integral part of most species’ existence. It ranges from the primitive forms of teaching survival, to the most advanced teachings at universities. It has increasingly been challenged, questioned, and modified due to the many controversial views it has conjured up. The text, “On the Uses of a Liberal Education: As Lite Entertainment for Bored College Students”, by Mark Edmundson, is about how, in his opinion, society, educational institutions, and the students themselves, all prevent the students from being original, unique, and succeeding in class. The second text, “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong”, by James W. Loewen, highlights how American history textbooks have led to the misinformation
…show more content…
Edmundson states, “‘Colleges don’t have admission offices anymore, they have marketing departments.’ Is is surprising that someone who has been approached with photos and tapes, bells and whistles, might come in thinking that the Freud and Shakespeare she had signed up to study were also going to be agreeable treats?” (329). Edmundson’s opinion based on this quote is that because colleges are giving a whole idea of what their university or college contains, students are just seeing the good things and aren’t ready for the actual learning that attending the institution is going to involve. Loewen uses introduces his idea, “‘We have not avoided controversial issues,’ announces one set of textbook authors; ‘instead, we have tried to offer reasoned judgments’ on them—thus removing the controversy!” (389). Edmundson’s idea directly applies to Loewen’s quote and can be used to help understand it. Just like college marketing departments are distracting students from what their college is actually about, the textbooks are distracting students from what is actually important when studying history: the discussion of controversial issues throughout history. Because the textbooks have removed or hidden the controversy, students have issues truly learning history; much like the exaggeration of the unessentials colleges like to present to …show more content…
Edmundson remarks, “My students, alas, usually lack the confidence to acknowledge what would be their most precious asset for learning: their ignorance” (332). Mark Edmundson believes that ignorance is essential to learning, and that students need to acknowledge their ignorance in order to learn to the best of their ability. Loewen comments in his text, “Indeed, history is the only field in which the more courses the students take, the stupider they become” (386). Loewen conclude that the history textbooks contain so much false and biased information, that students are becoming stupider learning through the textbook. Edmundson believes that a student’s ignorance is a vital trait for them to be able to learn new and different views about society. Edmundson’s opinion of a student’s need for ignorance directly conflicts with Loewen’s statement. Loewen believes that textbooks prepare students for failure in college, however, based on Edmundson, this ignorance is of a necessity in the college atmosphere. Loewen looks at stupidity as a bad trait, while Edmundson views it as promising. In my opinion, it is always good to learn new things even if they may be falsified or even detrimental. This is due to the fact that it will give you a unique viewpoint in which to view different ideas and
Edmundson states, “‘Colleges don’t have admission offices anymore, they have marketing departments.’ Is is surprising that someone who has been approached with photos and tapes, bells and whistles, might come in thinking that the Freud and Shakespeare she had signed up to study were also going to be agreeable treats?” (329). Edmundson’s opinion based on this quote is that because colleges are giving a whole idea of what their university or college contains, students are just seeing the good things and aren’t ready for the actual learning that attending the institution is going to involve. Loewen uses introduces his idea, “‘We have not avoided controversial issues,’ announces one set of textbook authors; ‘instead, we have tried to offer reasoned judgments’ on them—thus removing the controversy!” (389). Edmundson’s idea directly applies to Loewen’s quote and can be used to help understand it. Just like college marketing departments are distracting students from what their college is actually about, the textbooks are distracting students from what is actually important when studying history: the discussion of controversial issues throughout history. Because the textbooks have removed or hidden the controversy, students have issues truly learning history; much like the exaggeration of the unessentials colleges like to present to …show more content…
Edmundson remarks, “My students, alas, usually lack the confidence to acknowledge what would be their most precious asset for learning: their ignorance” (332). Mark Edmundson believes that ignorance is essential to learning, and that students need to acknowledge their ignorance in order to learn to the best of their ability. Loewen comments in his text, “Indeed, history is the only field in which the more courses the students take, the stupider they become” (386). Loewen conclude that the history textbooks contain so much false and biased information, that students are becoming stupider learning through the textbook. Edmundson believes that a student’s ignorance is a vital trait for them to be able to learn new and different views about society. Edmundson’s opinion of a student’s need for ignorance directly conflicts with Loewen’s statement. Loewen believes that textbooks prepare students for failure in college, however, based on Edmundson, this ignorance is of a necessity in the college atmosphere. Loewen looks at stupidity as a bad trait, while Edmundson views it as promising. In my opinion, it is always good to learn new things even if they may be falsified or even detrimental. This is due to the fact that it will give you a unique viewpoint in which to view different ideas and