Idea Number Two: A functional education vs. a liberal education.
Although this is not as extensively covered, the fact that it is so narrow could help me in writing a concise paper. I would examine both forms; exploring the benefits and shortcomings of both ideals of education. Because this is such a narrow topic, I would have the opportunity to go in depth and possibly argue for both sides. My conclusion would consist of which way is the better way to be educated and why.
Notes and organization: Compare and contrast essay. First, functional education because there is little support for it in your readings; most will be your own analysis. Liberal education quoting supporting authors on the importance. Lastly, an analysis of which is better, without clearly coming towards a conclusion but leaning towards liberal education. In each, cover the benefit both to the schools and the teachers of which is better. First two points covering just factual information possible…or biased analysis and then outweigh in the conclusion?
Resources: Need to bio and map out. Mainly behind book. Which authors support my points? Specific arguments needed to discern. Need proper documentation.
“Education can be a desperate, smothering embrace, and embrace that denied the needs of the other. But education can also be encouraging, communal embrace – at its best an invitation, an opening.” (PO, Rose, 107)
The value of education is unquestionable. As stated, it provides openings, paths leading to the achievement of one’s goals and successes. At the same time, it can be used as a controlling tool, an implement to achieve the goals of someone else; the pupil is ignored. What is it that the pupil needs? What is it that they should be taught? Is it right to teach them what is commonly accepted they must be taught to achieve society’s ends, or should they be taught only what is necessary to achieve their own goals? The question of a liberal education vs. a functional education has been wrestled with many times; scholars, professional educators, parents, and students in class all have discussed what it means to have a ‘good’ education.
This paper will examine both forms, defining what they mean and which one is preferable. First, the definitions. For the idea of a functional education, think of the definition of the word function: “a special purpose”. This means that there is an easily seen point of education, a clear cut path to goals. Also, functional education is exclusive to that special purpose. In a functional education, there are no extra classes that are not strictly necessary to achieving the goals, to fulfilling the purpose. A functional education would be facilitated by a technical school, or a vocational school where one learns one skill’s ‘on the job’. Typically, this type of schooling is cheaper and quicker than its opposite, a liberal education. Defining liberal as “not stingy, narrow, or conservative”, it is clearly seen that this type encompasses many areas of schooling. While having a viable goal, there are classes and procedures that do not seem to achieve that goal. Usually, the ‘unnecessary’ classes are the ones that is mandated by society that one should learn in order to achieve an understanding of society.
Firstly examining a functional education, one can easily see what the benefits are. The cost is cheaper and is done quicker. This can also be used against functional education. Looking at the former, some would argue that because this type of education is cheap and therefore is not true learning. However, Hart would beg to differ, explaining that cost means nothing:
‘Oh yes, they understood perfectly well what Bloom was saying: that they were ignorant, that they believed in clichés, that their education so far had been dangerous piffle…The better students, ashamed that their first 12 years of schooling had mostly been wasted (even if they had gone to Choate or Exeter)…’
This quote shows Hart criticizing the benefit of an education that, in most basic terms, must have been good because it cost a lot of money. He ridicules students who, their whole lives, had been told that prestige and money meant that they knew more than the common man who went to a public or a lesser school, that they were the priviledged few deserving of a better education. By saying that an expensive education does not always produce a better education, one can assume that a cheaper one does not produce a terrible education.
Next is the criticism of the speed of a functional school. Often, one is bombarded with late night ads of earning your degree in as little as two years. How, people suppose, can you possibly be a learned person in only two years?
The answer is that you cannot with a functional degree. Remembering the definition of function, one remembers that this type of education provides one special purpose of educating someone for a particular task. On those same late night ads one can observe the type of jobs being offered: dental assistant, assistant manager, minor accountant, clerical jobs in the medical field and the typical So Much More! As one can see by examining these jobs and the type of status and money they provide, these are not jobs that require an extensive education. However, jobs with high prestige, architect, photographer, writer, entrepreneur and so forth can also be achieved with a functional education. If one participates in a functional education, what are they missing? They know their job, perhaps better than their peers who posses a liberal degree, and can function fairly well. Truly, job performance, coupled with education, depends on that particular person’s work ethic.
Determining what should be taught and what should be taught is a difficult task. There are arguments that a liberal education is the only way to educate everyone to truly be a productive member of society:
“But a University training is the great ordinary means to a great but ordinary end’ it aims at raising the intellectual tone of society, at cultivating the public mind, at purifying that national taste, at supplying the principles to popular enthusiasm and fixed aims to popular aspiration, at giving enlargement and sobriety to the ideas of the age, at facilitating he exercise of political power, and refining the intercourse of private life.” (Newman, PO, 49)
Thus begins the arguments for a liberal education. Liberal is not narrow, has no special purpose, no specific tangible function. Although it may seem pointless to the average pupil, learning everything there is to know about not only the subject matter studying but one’s own society produces unbelievable advantages. In a competitive world of employment, the new boss is looking for a new breed of worker. Anyone can do any job, it is mused. What makes one separate from others is the amount of knowledge possessed. One who is broadly educated in the truest sense of the word obviously has more advantages, more experience to draw upon and ideas to implement. This is a value that is inherent in our culture:
“There is a strong impulse in American education – curious in a country with such an ornery streak of antitraditionalism – to define achievement and excellence in terms of the acquisition of a historically validated body of knowledge, an authoritative list of books and allusions, a canon.” (Rose, PO 113)
Rose explains that this is so inherent in our culture today because it satisfies a need to certify our intellect; a way to gauge a person’s IQ is to see what they know. However, it should be said that just because one knows a lot does not mean that one can do a lot. Knowledge does no good unless implemented, and a liberal education is wasted if one ignores the things that they have been taught. A liberal education helps provide a true understanding of one’s culture. Once one can understand themselves, then they can seek to understand others motives and desires. In a job market where money is made off of making the customer happy, it is important to understand others: the customer.
All of these points boil down to the bottom question: Which is better? What should every person be taught? The answer is not as simple as the question. It is best put by Rose in his paper ‘Lives on the Boundry’. In it, he describes poor immigrants and the lesser educated struggling to survive. Should they, if pursuing and education, be forced to be taught things that will not directly help them succeed? It is a question whether we are cheating the common man out of a great knowledge base when we recommend a functional education for those who are poor, who posses a language barrier, who simply do not have enough time to learn it all. Whether or not this makes them lesser educated or not as intelligent is easy enough to answer.
No.
As it has been stated before, it all depends on the person’s work ethic and drive. That is the answer to the question as to whether or not a liberal or functional education is better: it differs from person to person. Some would thrive on the knowledge of their ancestors and the past and what society deems is its great works; for others, this would seem needless in knowing how to perform in their job. While it is commonly seen that a liberal education is better, it is a fallacy. As Hart pointed out, a education that is deemed ‘better’ is not necessarily better. It is the person who makes their education, the person who decides how to use their knowledge, the person who decides what knowledge they need. To say that everyone needs a liberal education is to say everyone needs an SUV. However, it is clear that each individual gets their own transportation through their own financial and psychological needs.
To put an end to this debate, it is concluded that there is no ‘better’ education. An education with a specific purpose does not triumph over a broader education, and vice versa. It is commonly proven that the education, while helps, does not make a person. Only that person’s decisions in what they choose to know and implement makes that person functional in their careers. What Dr. Watson had to Say:
Satisfactory.
I think your argument and your conclusions are fine—you work through the question you pose fairly well, and you have relevant support. But this is a very rough draft, so it is hard for me to think about what this might look like in its final form. But here’s some suggestions: in general, your quotes are a bit too long. Much of the first quote (the Hart quote about student reaction to Bloom) you use is not relevant to your discussion at that point. Trim the quotes down to the essentials, and consider finding a better quote from Hart than the one that involves an understanding of how Bloom’s text works into the whole thing. Also, your sentence structure is often undercut by your use of “one” as a pronoun. There are very few occasions where “one” sounds more natural than a regular pronoun. You can avoid the whole she or he thing by using the plural. Finally, your essay could really use some concrete examples to clarify the points you are making—especially about the pros and cons of a liberal education (the paragraphs where you discuss Rose’s essay). In future, I would like to see you produce a more finished draft as a first draft (perhaps your “first draft” ought to be a second draft). Otherwise, good work so far.
