What do you think both Allitt and Menand would say about LR's Core curriculum? What are your thoughts on our Core? (See our Catalog at
http://www.lrc.edu/registrar/catalog/2007-2008/lrc-catalog-pp-96-102.pdf
and scroll down to the second page, printed page 97). Due Monday, 25 August.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Allitt and Menand both have very strong and well put together arguments. And with most points I found myself agreeing with them. The ideas that "more American colleges should offer the chance to specialize right from the outset" but also "maintain the liberal arts option for those who prefer it" presented by Allitt, and Menand's idea that "core requirements" "enable colleges to produce students who were well rounded" share common ground. Allitt believes that one size should not fit all, and here I find myself leaning towards his side. As an undecided major student I know exactly how it feels to not "have a clear sense of direction" (Allitt). Although I wish whole-heartidly I knew what I wanted to do with my life, it is not to be...yet. For some people however,they have chosen their career paths, and for that I congradulate them. In these instances I am very confident that both Allitt and Menand would approve of LR's curriculum, it does not force "some students to choose too soon, before they are ready" (Allitt), like me for instance, but it also allows students to be able to specialze in their desired courses. Everybody is differnt, everyone makes differnt choices, and I believe our curriculum gives the diversity everyone needs for the path that fits them best.
In Allitt's essay he states that the British system has a "great virtue" which was the studying only one subject allowed him to learn what he went to college for. He also says that he had a friend that decided she did not want to pursue a career in psychology, so she switched her major to french causing her to go to college longer than her class.
Menand states toward the end of his essay "..the only way to develop curiosity, sympathy, principle, and independence of mind is to practice being curious, sympathetic, principled, and independent." I feel that they may both be for a curriculum like Lenoir Rhyne's. Here at Lenior Rhyne we are required to take such classes that will enable us to have an expansive education. Instead of myself just taking classes that are needed to become an Elementary Teacher, I am taking other classes such as women's ensemble, psychology, and geography. And as for students who do not know what their major is, the varity of classes can give them ideas as to what career they may want to pursue in the future.
I could see that both authors, Allitt and Menand, were talking about the goodness of liberal education, that was what I thought. I disagreed with Allitt on not learning about liberal arts because some students with whichever decided on majors to work on might need to study this kind of art. I noticed the sentence like: "But the purpose of education is to empower people, to help them acquire some measure of control over own lives," by Menand, I agreed with this. Knowledge could help us by learning what we want to know. Menand might be open to only students of college who have decided majors already. I have chosen my major and already knew what my path is as Menand said so. So core curriculum could help us to get more credits for our decided majors so we couldn't lose our paths from liberal education.
After reading about Allitt and Menand's opinions on "Liberal Education" , I have come to the conclusion that I do think they both would agree with L-R's core curriculum. As a student, I think L-R's core is eminent which is why we're one of the best colleges you could attend. Not only does L-R help you to explore different paths you may want to take, but they help you to decide which major is best for you. L-R also isn't in any rush in making you decide which major you may want to pursue, there is plenty of time. Allitt also mentioned, quote, "anyone familiar with a group of seventeen and eighteen year-olds knows that assumption is not always dependable." As for Menand he believed that "doing" was the best way to present knowledge. He says, "critical theory doesn't empower people, self-esteem doesn't empower people, knowledge empowers people." Communication skills,being socially involved and teaching from personal examples can help better students knowledge. Which I agree. How can colleges produce students who are well rounded? Menand asks. He states that the Deweyan answer to this question is that, you can't teach people virtue by requiring them to read, but to exercise it.
After reading the articles by Patrick Allitt and Louis Menand, they were talking about the advantages of liberal education. In Menand’s work, he says “But the purpose of education is to empower people, to help them acquire some measure of control over their own lives.” I agree with Menand because the only thing that empowers people is knowledge. We have to have knowledge to express the world. We also have to have knowledge to make new products and invent something new. As to what Menand said, “Self-esteem and critical theory doesn’t empower people.” I also agree with what Menand said, “You can’t dictate what people will do with it, but you can at least give them access to it.” Lenoir-Rhyne’s curriculum helps you to explore different paths you may want to take and to help you to decide which major is best for you. There is no rush as to when you need to decide on your major. You will have enough time to make your final decision as to what you want to major in. When you decide that you like the classes you take, then most likely you will know what you want to major in.
Allitt's and Menand's argument on whether liberal arts curriculum was better than only studying in one specialized area. Allitt says that "it shouldn't mean that one size fits all," but he clearly states that he does not agree with the liberal arts curriculum. However, Menand does not disagree with the liberal arts system, nor does he agree with it. Lenoir-Rhyne clearly stays in the liberal arts field, but neither Allitt nor Menand would disagree with the curriculum. Allitt said that implies that while the liberal arts teaching is not what he prefers, it has it merits for those that are unable to make up their minds at 17- or 18-years-olds. But does that mean that whomever enters Lenoir-Rhyne as a student does not know what they want for a major simply because they chose a liberal arts school? I find that hard to believe. Allitt states that if students cannot decide their major at eighteen will have a better chance at twenty, but the question is why? One of his past girlfriends switched from wanting to be a psychologist to French major. But Allitt writes it off simply because the school they were attending in England was not a liberal arts school. Perhaps if she attended a liberal arts school and been exposed to different materials and that would have helped her fully decided her major. Menand started off by stating disagreement the principles of a liberal arts school, especially when he brings up Bradford College and what is required for that liberal arts school. Yet he strongly ends his piece about how you cannot teach virtue, curiosity, and independence of mind. That has to be learned, and what better place than a liberal arts school. Was it just that one liberal arts school he disagreed with? Or is it all liberal arts school curriculum that he dislikes? Liberal arts curriculum lets the students get a healthy chance to be a renascence man. This allows the students to choose the major they want to pursue after a small dose of what the major pertains. Liberal arts schools allow students to become a better person, to not only be academically smart in their own majors but also have a small background in math, English, history, and science. Lenoir-Rhyne tries to make sure that each student is academically smart in a religious faith, world history and cultures, natural sciences, and how to communicate their ideas. To LR this is what will help make the person whole, to help them fit better into the society outside of academics and their distinguished major. When applying for colleges I didn’t look anywhere else but at liberal arts school, knowing that I wanted a wide variety of knowledge, not narrowed down to only teaching and history. While I do agree with Allitt that those that want to be a physicist and only work towards a physics degree, than let them attend a school where that can happen. But do not condemn the schools that allow students to enter society with not only their narrow major, but with a broader idea of how society works.
Allitt and Menand seemed to have very similar views to that of Lenoir Rhyne. Allitt seemed to believe that having one concentration from the start of college is the way it should be. Allitt stated, "right from the start, each of us studied, or read only one discipline and mine was History." That was probably the only difference that he would have for LR's Core Curriculm. Lenoir Rhyne's core curriculm encourages that you take more classes that might necessarily not be in your concentration.
Louis Menand would agree with LR even more than Allitt. Menand sounded like he stood strong in his belief in general education. General Education to him means more knowledge. He also said that more knowledge is more empowerment and everyone wants to have more power.
My thought on the Core Curriculum is that we need general education to be more successful in life.
It better to know a wider range of subjects than just one.
Allit and Menand both have very strong and very convincing articals. I have come to realize that both, I believe, would agree with LR's core cirriculum. In Allit's article he claims that "students with the right frame of mind thrive on studying diverse subjects until they're ready.." This is a great statement and one I believe describes LR. At LR they want you to learn and understand other subjects besides the one that you are majoring in. This way you will be able to understand the others around you. Being that LR is a leberal arts college, they want you to be able to think problems through and to be able to process thoughts. At LR they want you to be able to be well rounded in all subjects therefore being able to comprehend others and their majors. In Menand's article he states that "you can only teeach a virtue by calling upon people to excersie it." Menand is more about doing or excersing your knowledge. He wants you to be able to use it in everyday situations. I also believe that this describes LR, because in most of my classes you are expected to speak up and voice your opinon. The professors want you to be able to think things through and be able to make decisions based on want they have taught you. They also want their students to be able to use whatever they may be teaching for everyday occasions. I honestly like LR's core cirriculum, because I am not confined to just one topic. I am able to learn about different things besides what is required with my major.
After reading the two articles presented by both authors, I think that Menand would agree with Lenoir-Rhyne's core curriculum. Allitt on the other side would not because his feelings expressed in the article show that he pity American colleges for not offer the vocational classes for those students who already have chosen their field of study. These students should be allow to take classes that relates to their college major. They should not have to take classes that are not specialized in their studies. For example, Allitt believes that the liberal arts classes should not be require for those students who have chosen a major already. My question is that how can students take classes that does not interfere with the liberal arts? Therefore, Lenoir- Rhyne College/University is a liberal arts school of higher education. Most of the required core classes are liberal arts classes. Menand argued that the purpose of education is to empower people, to help them acquire some measure of control over their own lives. This is why I think Menand would agree with L-R's core curriculum. As a educator you can only teach students about conflicts and help them evaluate the process of what is to be carried out. You hope they will understand the outside world of how things work. It is their job to control their lives. As stated in L-R's core curriculum page, "The college and faculties possesses and exercises knowledge; it shares knowledge and teaches others to use this knowledge in the pursuit of the common good. This statement is similar to that of Menand's earlier quote I used. L-R only hope that the students whom attend L-R uses the knowledge learned for the common good. The core requirements are not only required classes but the main purpose is to help students to create a well-rounded character of themselves. This is not just for students who have chosen their major study in college but for all. Yes, it is true that one size should not fit all but those students who have not decided will find out later in college what they want study. The core require classes will help them decide what they like to do, their interests, and much much more. Even if you are undecided, you will decide later on. As a student here at L-R, I believe that our college's core curriculum is really good. Since I am a major in elementary education I also take classes required for my major and extra classes such as geography and american government. These extra classes are here for more expanded knowledge. Which is great for everyone. L-R's curriculum provides many sizes for every student even half sizes too.
After reading the works of Allitt and Menand I find myself siding with Allitt. Both works were well written and had many good points to be convincing, but I stand with Allitt on this one. People should be able to choose what kind of education they get, especially if they're paying for it. Allitt believes that students shouldn't have to labor through classes that "seem to them a waste of valuable time". Menand, on the other hand, makes the arguement that "Knowledge empowers people". I would have to agree with both those statements but you can't force people to have power, they have to take it. I think that Allitt would appreciate Lenoir Rhyne's curriculum if he thought that was the kind of education a student going here would want. Menand would probably agree with Lenoir Rhyne's curriculum because that's what he thinks all higher educations should consist of. I believe if a student knows what they want and that's all they want education in then they shouldn't have to endure other classes. Likewise, if a student wants a broad range of courses so be it. But, there should be that choice.
Allitt and Menands articles I thought had many similarities. Yes, they contrast vert differently with what their opinions are but both agree on that the curriculum should be based on whatever the student is more comfortable with. Allitts last sentence says "it shouldn't mean that one size fits all." with his expierence, he went overseas to a college where he was placed right into his major classes. His daughter on the other hand will likely go take her basic classes at Emory and then go to a secondary school like many other college students for her graduate school. He believes if a student wants more knowledge in a particulary area that has nothing to do with the mastery of their particulary skill they can do on their own time not in the class room. He backs this up by stating, "I read plenty of great novels and a little science, even though i didn't take classes in those areas." I agree with him a 100 percent. I believe a student should be able to jump right into their major if they have a "clear sense of direction." At Lenoir-Rhyne I do not mind taking classes that aren't neccessary to my major but I sometimes feel as if I am still in high school taking classes just to GRADUATE. Menands point of view is not bad either, even though I do disagree with his opinion. I feel as if he wants students to take a wide variety of classes just for educational status. He states, "people who have attended college generally have no more sophisticated an understanding of them than people have have attended only high school." I do not see why it matters if you need practice in a skill just because someone who attended only high school might not know it. He believe the "prupose of education is to empower people, to help them acquire some measure of control over their own lives." Unless one goes to school to know about the whole world I believe college is only neccessary to gain a skill in an area where it'll help you be financially stable and happy and not need useless knowledge.
Both Allitt and Menand would see the Lenior Rhyne core curriculum as too restrictive, though each for different reasons. Allitt cogently states his desire for liberal arts colleges to offer incoming freshman the chance to specialize, the opportunity to pour themselves whole heartedly into the career path of their choice without wasting their time in classes they find unnecessary. But how unnecessary are these classes? A core curriculum is designed to give students a firm base for succeeding in the real world. In Allitt’s mind it seems a college that creates ‘a jack of all trades and a master of none’ failed its it overall duty to both student and state–after all, he sees college as a place one learns what is necessary for one’s job, end of story. Trying to incorporate the British system of undergraduate specialization into Lenoir Rhyne would disturb the balance the campus created with its message of providing students with a balanced education that will help them become leaders in the 21st century.
Menand believes that a college must teach students “about the way the world works.” He wants more than the basic core curriculum that Lenoir Rhyne provides. He wants the college to direct students through a thorough understanding of basic studies, such as sciences, business, and law, which most liberal arts seem to exclude in their core curriculum. Without those kinds of courses, a student is not fully prepared for the advancing world. He finds the influence colleges like Lenoir Rhyne put on “‘culture’-based core requirements” not as valuable as one based on courses which have a more practical use in the real world–such as courses on economics, business, and law. While those types of classes do not necessarily promote a student’s moral character as much as a the so called “culture-based” curriculum, it would offer students a better understanding of the way the world works.
I think Lenoir Rhyne’s core curriculum is generally beneficial and helps to create a well rounded student. The curriculum forces students into classes they probably wouldn’t have taken on their own and the classes offer students the opportunity to discover interests they never knew about and find the connections between the different fields of study. Even if the knowledge learned is, as Allitt puts it, “superficial,” it is still there. Knowledge is power, as Menand declared, and true knowledge comes from many sources. I believe Allitt’s system of allowing students to specialize early would not transition well as you would undoubtably have those students who were hot for a certain career and convinced it was the right path for them but end up realizing their mistake too late and wasting a year of their life? I think Menand’s idea of adding more practical classes to a liberal arts college’s core curriculum would be beneficial to all those involved as it gives insight on subjects that one rarely understands unless on is specializing in that field.
I don’t think Mr. Allitt would agree with Lenoir-Rhynes core curriculum due to the fact that the university requires so many credits from a number of fields. He clearly stated that colleges and universities should offer the choice of specializing from the start if students knew what they wanted. He finds it a waste of the students’ time to take core classes that have nothing to do with their major. This doesn’t mean that students wouldn’t enjoy taking the classes but that it would create more time to focus on a specific major. What works for one student may not work for another is what I think he means.
I believe Mr. Menand would agree with Lenoir-Rhynes core curriculum because he believes that with knowledge comes power. He thinks the purpose of education is to give power to the students. Lenoir-Rhynes core curriculum consists of many fields of study and every student must know so much about each one. This clearly goes with what he believes should exist in every type of education.
I don’t think college students should be required to take classes and pass them if it has nothing to do with their intended major. Most students know what they want to do and so should be allowed to specialize in that field right from the start. If a student doesn’t know then they should follow the curriculum as a guide-line for exploring their possibilities. I would have to agree with Mr. Patrick Allitt on this argument.
In an article written by Patrick Allitt he initially compares his college experience with his daughter’s. There are two main factors that illustrate the differences in their college encounters, and those are location and time. Allitt attended college at the University of Oxford in England and his daughter, Frances, is entering at Emory University in America. There is also a generation difference between them. When Patrick Allitt attended Oxford the tuition was paid for and students received money for other living expenses. During his three years at Oxford, he stated his parents only had to pay four hundred dollars, when today college tuitions can be as high as one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. I feel as if his article is very factual and it was hard for me to grasp the overall message he wanted to portray to his viewers. Menand on the other hand, was a little easier to understand by certain statements he made that could be used as strong evidence towards his view on liberal education. He feels that the best trait an individual can posses to empower another person is knowledge. A solid education about history, grammar, etc is key and other traits such as self-esteem, curiosity, and sympathy should be learned through everyday life. Those traits must be learned through experience and cannot be successfully taught in a classroom. When Menand states, “professors today have to be able to teach basic skills courses and a much wider range of much-less-specialized courses that they once did…” this is the one idea he exposes that I have objections to. Likewise, professors today have more little things to teach students, and there are many new choruses a student can take that were not available a long time ago. This is only because as the world turns and time goes by, there is much advancement in technology, knowledge, and everyday activities that an individual is expected to know. For example, maybe schools didn’t offer parenthood classes when our grandparents where in school, but then again at that time there were very few teenagers becoming pregnant. In order for students to thrive successfully in life, professors must be able to teach us what we need to know. I feel Lenoir-Rhyne has a very good curriculum. There are classes, foreign language for intense, that I would not initially take if it were not mandatory. Since the United States is become so diverse, having knowledge in a foreign language would be helpful to me. Menand would probably agree most with Lenoir-Rhyne’s curriculum and the mandatory classes you must take because the required ones help you with any field a student would want to go in.
Menand’s article, I believe, would agree with LR’s core curriculum more so then Allitt. While Allitt does not completely cut off the liberal arts education, he seems very adamant about vocational studies. He clearly states this by saying “..the vast American system can maintain the liberal arts option for those who prefer it and don’t yet have a clear sense of direction. But let’s get rid of the idea that liberal arts is for everyone.” The LR catalog clearly states that completing the core curriculum is required to graduate. So everyone, even if they know their major, must complete the required credits. I do not think Allit would agree with everyone being required to take liberal arts.
Menand simply believes that students should be well rounded and would agree with the LR core curriculum. The fact we are required to take classes, even if they are not helpful to our major, would be the main reason Menand would agree with the LR core curriculum.
LR core curriculum is something I prefer as a student only because I have not declared a major. Even if I had a major and could chose a vocational curriculum, the idea of changing my mind and waiting another year to graduate does not set easy with me. A liberal arts education is ideal because it gives you a taste of what your college has to offer. Liberal arts provides the opportunity of possibly find something you never knew existed, while a vocational would seem to restrict you. I think that’s why I agree with LR’s core curriculum and a liberal art education in general. The opportunity to learn and grow not only in mind, but grow as a person.
I believe that Allitt and Menand would find LR’s curriculum a burden on a students full potential. Allitt referred back to his college years when all education was given to students that really wanted it. He states that he was able to learn on a variety of topics to make him a well rounded individual. He compares his to the college experience his daughter will go through. He believes that the “new age” ways of educating students limit’s a students total ability. He feels that students will learn many topics but wont learn it well enough to use it effectively. Allitt also states that when he was a TA he was impressed how students referred to things they learned from other classes they had taken, but was let down when he read their papers on how poorly they knew how to write. I think that’s why he feels the way schools now are flawed, by they will teach you one thing but wont focus on other things. Menand feels the same way. He feels that a student should be able to learn any topic they want and not have to learn things they will not use after that class. He states that student cant study law until he graduates and goes to law school. He thinks a student should be able to learn as many subjects as they want. As for my opinion on LR’s curriculum I agree and disagree with it. I like the fact that they want us to be as educated as possible, but I am a math major I do not see how psychology will help me in mathematics. I will also have to take an art class. I find this unnecessary because with my chosen field I do not draw anything but triangles. The curriculum of new age schools seems to work for most students. I agree with both authors that if a student wants to be in a chosen field that they should not have to take other classes that don’t belong with that subject, but one student wont change the minds of millions of proven results.
After reading the two assigned essays I believe that Allitt and Menand see both positive and negative aspects of a liberal arts core curriculum, such as Lenior-Rhyne's, but overall support it. Allitt spoke about how impressed he was as a TA at Berkeley when his students used examples that they had learned in other classes that pertained to the history curriculum of his class, after this discussion he stated that he felt "a trifle narrow and parochial". Allitt felt as though students being able to study many different subjects rather than to focus on one vocational subject was a great advantage of a liberal arts core curriculum. Although Allitt points out many advantages, he also points out several disadvantages such as a liberal arts core curriculum may not benefit someone who knows what they want to do with their life and may actually just be a waste of valuable time. Menand has similar views on this matter as Allitt. He states that "the purpose of education is to empower people, to help them acquire some measure of control over their own lives." I believe that in this statement Menand agrees with a liberal arts core curriculum due to the fact that it allows students to explore many areas and chose which carreer is right for them. I agree with a liberal arts core curriculum, such as Lenoir-Rhyne's, because as Allitt said some eighteen year olds may not be sure of what exactly they want to do and this type of core allows them to keep their options open until they are more sure.
Patrick allitt feels that the liberal arts approach is not for everyone. He tells us about an old girlfriend that thought she knew that she wanted to major in psycology. She decided after a year that it was not for her and switched her major to French. This ended up putting her a year behind everyone else in college therefore the liberal arts approach would have suited her well. Allitt states that we should get rid of the idea that liberal arts education is for everyone. Some people work well under the liberal arts curriculum but others already know exactly what they want to major in so that approach would not benefit them. Louis Menand believes that "knowledge impowers people," not self-esteem and not critical theory. This comes across to me that he would agree with our liberal arts system because we believe in well-rounded students. He uses quotes from John Dewey, the philosopher of education, such as, "You cannot teach people a virtue by requiring them to read books about it. You can only teach a virtue by calling on people to exercise it."
I feel that our curriculum is very beneficial to students because we are a liberal arts school. It gives students a chance to broaden their horizons and be well-rounded with the knowledge that they gain. In today's world, people face all different kinds of situations within their specialty. It is better to know a little about everything than to know everything about one thing.
I don't understand why Menand and Allitt are even concerned about liberal arts colleges because there are so many different kinds of colleges, as students we can practically take our pick. If a student wants to go to a vocational college and study only their intended major then that's perfectly acceptable. To me, a liberal arts school is where I want to be, therefore, that's where I am. I agree with parts of each argument. I think it’s a little unfair how schools require students to complete certain courses in order to graduate but then again it does give us basic knowledge which gives us the ability to understand topics of basic conversations. Without my high school requiring me to complete core classes I probably wouldn’t have ever taken a history course but without those courses I wouldn’t know anything about our country. Menand would most likely agree with the way LR operates because the kinds of schools he speaks of in his article is basically just like that of LR. Allitt, on the other hand, couldn’t possibly understand why anyone would want that kind of education because that’s not how he was raised. His daughter will be fine at a liberal arts school but he wouldn’t be able to survive, partly because of the generation gap and partially because I don’t think he knows how to think for himself. At his college he had to change his way of thinking for each professor, therefore nothing he writes is ever really his work. School is supposed to be about learning and thinking for yourself. It seems to me that the institute he attended didn’t do anything to help him, which is a waste of time.
"People learn socially... Critical thinking doesn't empower people. Self-esteem doesn't empower people. Knowledge empowers people,” say Dewey and Menand. It is said that 'practice makes perfect' and the more you practice the better you are. The more you know, the better-rounded you become in your careers and your everyday life. That is what is implemented in the teachings and curriculums of liberal arts. Everyone has control of how well-rounded they choose to allow themselves to become. In your lifetime, do you even choose to attend college in the first place? Do you want to expand your knowledge and capabilities for your everyday life? Some of us get that lighting-strike drive to want to learn more, more, and more. And some of us take an alternative route to stick with the basics, and move forward. I personally think and feel that there is no argument to be made about a liberal arts curriculum in a college, because there are far too many other institutions that don't require a well-rounded tag for a degree. So therefore, you choose your destiny as an individual in this world.
Allit expressed his feelings toward a liberal arts curriculum ever so clearly; liberal equals a waste of time. Which he has every right to his opinion, and going by his personal college experience, the basics were enough and SHOULD be enough. Therefore, Lenoir-Rhyne would not be his #1 choice in furthering education for a degree. Okay, now let’s take a look at society. Who are the higher of success people? There are doctors, who attended years and years of those 'useless' classes to become that person who saves your life on your last breath. And most lawyers, who studied their behinds off to protect the innocent and imprison the hazardous, have gone through grueling, ‘unnecessary’ classes. Now, let us ask, who are of the lesser success? There is Miss Cleo, who could tell you exactly how your life would unfold within 5 minutes, at 3.95 per minute. Or even, Jerry Springer, who God only knows what his calling was in life, would help people to reveal cheating and immoral behavior. So, that being said, we could compare Allitt's fountain pen and record player to his daughter's computer and iPod. The difference is in the same extreme. The times have changed. We are in the year 2008, where knowledge is power with everything we do, and everyone we encounter. It is of our responsibility as individual human beings to decide our destination. Going along with Menand, he would indeed be on board with Lenoir-Rhyne's curriculum. "...the only way to develop curiousity, sympathy, principle, and independence of mind is to practice being curious, sympathetic, principled, and independent."
Post a Comment