During in-class discussions students typically react rather strongly and emotionally to Bird's essay, usually negatively Sometimes they almost seem to feel threatened—after all, most have made a rather significant commitment, in time and money, toward their college education. Some seem confused by the idea that their college instructor would have them read an argument against going to college. They seem even more surprised that I would defend the argument during in-class discussions.
Actually there are two separate issues to be covered: first, the subject (the value of going to college) and second, the nature of the argument itself. That is, I want to talk about what Bird argues and about how she argues it.
From the student's point of view, I suppose that question could be rephrased as "Why are you taking this class?" Answers to that would vary depending on what part of the question is stressed."
Why are YOU taking this class?
Why are you taking THIS class?
WHY are you taking this class?
I get a lot of different answers. Perhaps the most honest was from the student who said, "I'm taking this class because my mother told me that if I don't go to college, I have to join the Marines." I don't know what happened to that student, but I do know that he didn't finish the class (perhaps he has discovered that military service is not as bad as he had feared).What was his mother's motive in trying to get him to go to college?
That's a major point Caroline Bird addresses. She talks about the motives parents have for sending their children to college. Clearly most parents and students see the purpose of college as "vocational." They see the purpose of college as training for a lucrative career
Is that, however, the purpose of college from the point of view of those who design college curricula? Bird says, among many other things, that the course of studies which college was designed to teach was established long ago when, perhaps, vocational training was not seen as the purpose of college. Traditionally education was divided into two categories: "vocational education" (job training) and "liberal education" (the education appropriate for free--that is, non-slave or non-servant--citizens). Colleges in the past focused only on the second of these, seeing its role more in terms of leadership training. People did not go to college to learn how to make money; most who went were already wealthy or were going to college as a prelude to entering the priesthood.
Even structure or organization of colleges reflects this old view. Even less than a century ago, the traditional college curriculum was built around the classical "Seven Liberal Arts" believed to be the basic curriculum of the schools of ancient Rome. As set forth by the writings of Martianus Capella they are
Please note that the first group is reflected in the requirements for this class. While the class is taught under the heading of "English," as you can see the course content is actually older than the English language.
Although we have added much and shifted much, this two part structure is still revealed in much of the modern college organization and approach.
So, how can a curriculum designed to meet the needs of aristocrats a thousand or more years ago be of value to students of today? Clearly we have a different kind of society. First, vocations are far more complex today. Simple apprenticeship is no longer adequate. Second, our society is no longer sharply divided into aristocratic and servile classes. While there are social distinctions (and often unfair ones), the existence of a large middle class and the elimination of legal distinctions have changed things greatly. As a result, the function of college may have changed?
These facts neither prove nor disprove Bird's claim; they merely show that the subject may be worth considering. We have reason to listen to her argument and then judge for ourselves.
Of course, we cannot really be in a position to judge Bird’s argument (or the argument of anyone) until we have understood it thoroughly. This principle is true for everything we are going tread this semester. For that reason, I am assigning a summary of Bird’s essay.
Write and submit a detailed summary of Caroline Bird's essay” College is a Waste of Time and Money." The summary must NOT be an evaluation or criticism of the essay. I am not asking you to agree or disagree, but to summarize each of her points in a way that she would agree is a fair restatement of her argument.
Any argument is basically a claim
(expressed in an essay as a "thesis statement") with supporting reasons.
(You can look up some of the following terms in the Classical Rhetoric file.)
Bird's claim is simple enough: college is a waste of time and money.
Her rhetorical goal is to persuade the audience to accept the truth of the
claim. She uses some very traditional, perhaps even ancient, methods of
persuasion.
For over two thousand years teachers of rhetoric (the art of persuasion) have in
one form or another taught the following basic outline. You can find it in
Aristotle's book on rhetoric.
*The Greek term translated as technical here (techne) is often also translated "artistic," but that should not be used in the modern sense of "art." "Art" in this sense is simply the Latin version of the Greek word "techne," meaning a set of principles which can be taught and learned. The technical means are part of the art of rhetoric. They can be outlined, taught, and learned. The non-technical means of persuasion cannot be taught, not because they reside in some mysterious natural talent, but rather they reside in "reality." You don't invent witnesses or facts; you find them in reality and apply them to your argument.
The idea is that the items in the second group are used for a purpose in the first group. An example could be used to stir an emotion in the audience (pathos) or to build an inductive argument (logos). Simply knowing facts and examples tends to build trust an audience's in the arguer (ethos).
As you read Bird's argument, look for her evidence. Find things she is presenting as examples, witnesses, statistics, expert testimony, etc. Think about whether she is trying at any specific point to make you feel an emotion or whether she is trying to be logical. Try to find out something about her background. Do the facts about her, combined with the way she presents her argument, make her credible?
As you can see, Bird's argument, whether you accept it or not, is great deal more complex than you may have originally thought. Her methods of arguing are worth understanding, even emulating.