Menand, Louis. Composing Knowledge Readings For College Writers, "What Are Universities For?" Ed. Rolf Norgaard. Bedford/ St. Martin's. 2007. Print. (254)
Louis Menand's "What Are Universities For?" analyzes the students’ purpose in higher-level education.
The title of Louis Menand's essay, "What Are Universities For," sounded like an appropriate question to ask to help me further assess why educational institutions must adapt to meet the needs of diverse learners. Menand firmly believes that socio-political factors distort the intentions of a student and, even more so, of a university by acquainting success with finances. A survey conducted by the American Council of Education reported that 74% of students attended college in hopes of "being very well-off financially" in the future. (262) Who is to blame though for this lack of educational interest? Well, universities are to blame; they are forced to create a universal curriculum that adheres to all student needs, but really what is happening now is simply a lack of student interest, vague instruction, and resentment toward this faulty universal system. By generalizing instruction with prerequisite requirement students are forced to conform, and sacrifice genuine educational interests, universities must..."keep out "unqualified" practioners, (...), by monopolizing both instruction and scholarship." (263)
Menand's essay would work well with my other sources, but especially Gladwell, and Feire because he questions the goals of modern educators, and holds them accountable for students increased lack-of-interest toward educational success. Educators have been, for over a century, forced to meet curriculum requirements. Though, by doing so, they have become less focused on providing a substantial education, and more focused on meeting general, "practical" requirements, but how is this beneficial?
Louis Menand's "What Are Universities For?" analyzes the students’ purpose in higher-level education.
The title of Louis Menand's essay, "What Are Universities For," sounded like an appropriate question to ask to help me further assess why educational institutions must adapt to meet the needs of diverse learners. Menand firmly believes that socio-political factors distort the intentions of a student and, even more so, of a university by acquainting success with finances. A survey conducted by the American Council of Education reported that 74% of students attended college in hopes of "being very well-off financially" in the future. (262) Who is to blame though for this lack of educational interest? Well, universities are to blame; they are forced to create a universal curriculum that adheres to all student needs, but really what is happening now is simply a lack of student interest, vague instruction, and resentment toward this faulty universal system. By generalizing instruction with prerequisite requirement students are forced to conform, and sacrifice genuine educational interests, universities must..."keep out "unqualified" practioners, (...), by monopolizing both instruction and scholarship." (263)
Menand's essay would work well with my other sources, but especially Gladwell, and Feire because he questions the goals of modern educators, and holds them accountable for students increased lack-of-interest toward educational success. Educators have been, for over a century, forced to meet curriculum requirements. Though, by doing so, they have become less focused on providing a substantial education, and more focused on meeting general, "practical" requirements, but how is this beneficial?