English99-Frank Gannon

Gannon's essay is mainly about the new English 99 class that he was given to teach at a small college. He at first wanted a Nonfiction Writing class but ended up with a class where the students were not ready for an English class that counts for a bachelor's degree and is a very profitable class for the college. It is profitable for the college because they made money off those who were most likely not going to graduate and were taking a class that did not give them any credits. "The truth of the matter was that English 99 was there so that the college could get some money from these kids before they flunked out or quit." This to me is wrong on so many levels. First of all a class should not be there unless you are going to use it in the future. Taking a class at a college should be inspiring and not just there so the college can make money. I also feel bad for Gannon because his first real professor job was basically fake and then he gets fired. No wonder he wrote about this class in this essay. "There was no seating chart in English 99, so anyone could sit anywhere in the room, but, for some reason, the classes always segregated themselves." I believe this to be true at times, but to me, in college no one really knows anyone and I do not really put a label on myself when I enter a classroom. I usually sit down wherever there is room to sit and preferably not in the front only because I like to see everything in front of me. In high school this was true. At lunch many sat in their little groups, which were usually groups that had something in common: race, gender, religion, sports, etc. Overall this essay was Gannon letting many know that those classes that do not count towards your degree or the classes that you receive no credits for are most likely there for the college to get money out of you. Gannon was clearly upset with the class he had to take over with all the terrible papers he had to grade and all for nothing. The only thing he had to do was pass or fail the student and did not even have to really grade anything. I would probably be angry to and would be very glad to have been let go.

Learning in the Key of Life-Jon Spayde

In Spayde's interesting idea that a truly good education is obtained through the connections we make in the real world made me think about what I learn in class as well as walking around throughout my life. I could not say I learn more in a classroom than I do in the real world or that I learn more in the real world than I do in the classroom. I think you learn different things in both situations, both being very important in your life. "Will the humanities make you rich? Absolutely. But not in terms of money. In terms of life." This quote reminds me of my grandmother because she is always telling me that if your not happy, money can not fill the void that is making you unhappy. You must find something you love to do, not thinking of the money you will make. I do believe her on some levels and do agree with both my grandmother and Spayde, but money can make your life a whole lot easier, which can help you in the process of becoming happy. In Spayde's essay, he also quotes David Orr who is a professor at Oberlin College. "The aim of slow knowledge is resilience, harmony and the preservation of long-standing patterns that give our lives aesthetic, spiritual and social meaning." Spayde says "Orr says that we are focusing far too much of our energy and resources on fast knowledge, ignoring all the richness and meaning slow knowledge adds to our lives." To me this means that we are trying to learn and gather as much quantity of knowledge as we can in as little time as possible when we should really be absorbing, understanding, and appreciating the things we learn. Gaining knowledge slowly helps you to understand the responsibility that comes with new knowledge whereas learning too quickly you might sometimes use that knowledge irresponsibly.

School-Kyoko Mori

In Mori's essay, she explains and shows through example the differences of recieving an education in the United States or Japan. She says that in Japan, the education is more strict and harsh whereas the education in the U.S. is more informal and helpful. She also states that in America, people in their thirties and forties have a chance to change their lives by going back to college, but in Japan it's a different story. In Japan she says it is practically impossible to go back to school. This is one reason I value my education in the United States. Knowing that their is not much pressure on choosing a career I think can really help you find your true passion. I can search around and truly find what I will truly love doing. If I was pressured, knowing I would not be able to go back to school for a second chance in finding my passion, I would probably make a mistake and end up doing something I did not enjoy. Mori also tells how in Japan, the grading was not straightforward in that the teachers do not tell you what exactly you need to work on, they would simply say "Your writing needs improvement" or "I can see you tried some but you still have a long way to go." In my personal experience, my papers usually come back to me all marked up which is very helpful and when I write my final paper I feel a lot better turning it back in. "The paradox about the two styles of teaching is that neither emphasizes what it considers to be truly important." This statement she makes is somewhat true but I think that the Western approach to teaching is more useful to a student so they can fix the problems they have in their papers and not just sit there and ponder about it; not truly learning what was wrong. The only good I read about the Japanese education was "Most Japanese students have public-performance opportunities many of my American friends-artists and musicians-don't." But like she said " the price is too high."

Michael Sokolove

Throughout Sokolove's essay, he explains how college sports, mainly football, have become all about money and not really just about playing the game. I agree with this because without money, football at colleges would not succeed or even be there. He tells how colleges try to be a part of the Division 1 A and how when a part of them, they barely break even in money or dig themselves a huge hole in debt. "The mantra of the need to spend money to make money can be used to justify a great deal of spending, without leading an institution to any destination other than a deeper financial hole" -James Shulman and William Bowen. Sokolove also shows through examples that many of the colleges will do anything to keep their sports players in the game. For example: "the university president resigned in the fall after acknowledging that he ordered a change in the calculation of a star basketball player's gpa." College football needs to be about playing the game and not about all the money and fame. I know it will never just be about playing the game because our world is all about money, but I will always think it should be about the fun and love of the game.



When Sokolove starts to talk about Jim Leavitt and how he contributed to the University of South Florida by becoming the head football coach, I became very interested in the reading. This portion of the essay reminded me of those dramatic football movies where one coach loves the game and not just for the money and fame, but because football is a part of him. When hearing about the $180,000 salary Leavitt recieved, I became a little upset because it says the average for Conference USA coaches is $410,000. When reading this "And implied that the coach was too dedicated to the next game and next victory to properly focus on his own self-interest" it made me wonder where people like this went in sports. A lot of college coaches seem to be there for the money rather than love of the game. Near the end of the essay when Sokolove talks more about the student athletes at U.S.F and their reactions to football, I was surprised to hear that they are not only athletes, but students as well and are to attend all classes. The way the players are basically forced to attend class and forced to keep up their grades is a very good thing Leavitt did. I found it humorous when U.S.F beat Southern Mississippi and the U.S.F athletic director wanted to give Leavitt a raise . The fact that the only reason they pay the man what he should be paid based on winning a game is kind of sad yet it happens a lot throughout many of the Universities. The schools do not want to lose the coach that is helping them win not only 0n the field but with the budget and publicity as well.

Tannan and Cheney

Cheney discusses that American history education nowadays is taught negatively to an extreme. Some educators are teaching that Colombus was a thief "a greedy man and a murderer". One teacher, Cheney says, teaches her students "the positive" myth of Colombus is used for political reasons and that the government supports this version only to keep from being criticized for U.S. imperialism. Cheney thinks that history education was too positive in the past and is now turning more negative as the years go on. Cheney is a conservative and they are generally traditional, so I can see where this change in education can upset her. In my personal experience in history, I was taught that Colombus was a hero who founded America and never once heard that Colombus was a thief of any kind. I think politics should not have anything to do with education. Education should be the truth, whether that be positive or negative. If your not taught all aspects of history, good and the bad, how are we as Americans to learn from it. Cheney also discusses how in one incident the AAUW said that textbooks are discriminatory against women which is not true. The AAUW also made claims about sexual harrassment in school. Because of these reports the AAUW issued, congress passed legislation for schools to be more female friendly and of course millions of dollars of federal funds went to the schools. I dont think that politics should be involved in any aspect of school. School is there for you to learn.

In general Tannen discusses the different opinions on how arguments are productive or unproductive in the classroom. One example she uses is how teachers are at first excited to hear their students in a heated debate, but soon realize it is usually only a couple people who speak and they are usually out to be right and "go for the most gross and dramatic statements they can muster" instead of listening to the oponents view. I agree that in most classroom debates students tend to get very emotional and heated when disagreed upon. Tannen believes that there are usually more than two sides in discussions and we shouldn't just look at the two, we should discuss all the points of views and opinions.

What is a Liberal Education?-Donald Kagan

Throughout Kagans article about what exactly is liberal education, he goes back in history and talks alot about Universities in medieval times and how important people in that era thought Universities and education were. In the middle ages the 7 liberal arts were grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. These are very different to the liberal arts we have today. To the champions of a liberal education, the 4 kinds of goals of it were the achievement of the contemplative life, to shape character, to prepare one for their career, and to let the student have their freedom. All of these goals I believe still hold true in todays Universities because those are the goals many achieve after attending a University.
Kagan wrote on how some who attended a University might sometimes be called Pedants. A pedant is one who is self-absorbed and wasn't into socializing; was obsessed with ones education. This was looked at as wrong by many of the fathers who didn't want their sons working too hard or ruining their social life. This was quite humurous to me because nowadays when one is hard working and stays focused on his studies, he most likely will succeed and his parents will usually be very proud.
The quote "A man of the highest education ought to know something of everything, and everything of something" I believe is very true. If we were to attend college and focus on only our major, we would only be educated on one thing. I do think that a person who knows a little of everything and also a lot of one thing would do better in life than one who only knows a lot of one thing. This quote broadened the field of learning and was known as "universal knowledge".
In conclusion, Kagan talks about how if a college is to offer a liberal education, they should uphold the freedoms that we are entitled to which are the right of free speech, free exchange of ideas, present unpopular points of view, and freedom to move around and use the universities facilities without interference. I believe that Universities should give us these freedoms to some extent. I do not think that speakers whos goal is to start a riot and put others in danger should be able to speak on campus unless they show that none would be harmed in doing so. Liberal Education is important in a university to make people more well rounded and if their career doesnt go the way they planned, they have other subjects from the liberal arts to fall back on

The Idea of a University-John Henry Newman

Even though this was difficult reading I think Newman was trying to say that the goal of the University is to help you become ready for the world and be a "good member of society", but not to train you in a particular profession or educate you in one particular area. I think todays Universities do both, you get general education in a lot of different areas and also professions.

The Case Against College- Linda Lee

Although some of what Lee said may be true, I still think that going to college and recieving a higher education is important to your life in the future. She does prove her point that you don't necessarily need to go to college to succeed in life in many examples, but to me its not just for your future, its to find out what in life you enjoy and the experience you get going to college and learning what your good at. I agree with Lee's views on how many have succeeded without college degrees, but I am still glad I have attended college after high school, and so far I am enjoying my college experiences.