College Education: Recreational Life experience or Creative Laborious Learning

¾ On Mark Edmundson’s “On the Use of a Liberal Education”

        Oct. 21st, Cliff Changchun Zou

       When I entered a top-level college in China 11 years ago, I felt my dream came true. As a top-level university in China, its education is well-known demanding. Almost every night right after dinner, I would go to classroom to study for three to four hours. Only in the weekend, I could have some funs to watch TV or play with my friends. At that time, most of my classmates and I were idealists: we came into this famous university; we were able to and should become scientists or experts in the Engineering area; we should have a successful career after we graduate and contribute to our country.

       As time went by, however, I gradually grew up to become a realist. As I began to have my own mind of the world and the society, I realized that I was not a genius like Newton or Einstein; I was just an ordinary young guy with some high-tech knowledge. I could make some contributions to our country, but they were almost invisible to the society. Instead, I should pay more attention to my own life, to make it better and meaningful to itself.

       I think what I describe above is the typical American believes: the objective of life is to have a healthy life, a happy family, and a decent job that you like. This is the objective for most ordinary people in a stable society, but not for some geniuses, or for political leaders in a dramatically changing society. For geniuses, the ordinary people’s life style and objective can suppress their talents, prevent them generating fresh new ideas.

       In Edmundson’s essay “On the Use of a Liberal Education”, the author criticizes the current American college education system, arguing that the entertainment style of college education generates less creative and energetic students for our society. He concludes that because of current “consumer capitalism”, the “buyer’s market” of college education, American colleges and professors have lowered their teaching requirements; students become less energetic and have less creative, distinctive thinking.

       I disagree with Edmundson’s main criticisms of American college education. I think even though some colleges have some problems as mentioned in Edmundson’s article, the entertainment, not too demanding style is the right way for college education. It can generate more knowledgeable and healthy ordinary people for the society.

       Now America is a stable society with steady development. What it needs is that every person in this society can behave normally and has some knowledge to make contributions to the economy. It doesn’t need too many “geniuses”; otherwise the steady development will be shaken. In a word, America needs geniuses, but it needs more knowledgeable normal people.

       I remember one episode in the TV series “growing pain”: as a top intelligent college student, Carol thought that her mother was stupid to have given up her bright future of the news job in order to stay at home taking care of her children.  Carol wanted to devote all her life to her future career. Later on after her mother explained to her the meaning of life, the happiness of family love and fostering children, she changed her attitude towards life and her future. The purpose of college education not only is to teach some knowledge to students, but also, maybe more importantly, is to teach and guide students to become adults with mature understanding and attitude towards life and the world.

       If the college education becomes what Edmundson wants, giving more creative laborious teaching to students, then most students will be overwhelmed by course tasks and homework. They will have less time to communicate with each other, to understand others’ life and thinking. This kind of education might be good for producing more creative geniuses for our society, but it’s harmful for the healthy growing up of most ordinary students, harmful for them to become knowledgeable and at the same time have interests in their future works.

       Of course, some arguments of Edmundson are meaningful and convincible.  There really exist some problems in current college education system. For example, he points out that “suddenly college became a buyer’s market”; “One of the ways we’ve tried to stay attractive is by loosening up” (102). This trend will hurt students to really grasp knowledge and hurt the development of the society in the long run. Another one valuable argument of Edmundson is that current college students are driven too much by money and their future career prospects: “It’s also about dollars. Students worry about taking too many chances with their educations will sabotage their future prospects” (100). If every student rushes into computer engineering, law school, or commerce department in order to earn more money in the future, some cold subjects, such as mathematics and humanities, will be deserted and thus hurt the overall healthy development of the society. 

       Unlike what Edmundson criticizes, I believe current college education is the right way for general college education. America needs geniuses, but it needs more knowledgeable normal people. Colleges not only teach knowledge but also teach students how to grow up to face this adult world. For most college students, this four-year college experience is the most meaningful and precious time they will enjoy in their life.

  Work Cited

 Edmundson, Mark. “On the Uses of a Liberal Education”. The Original Text-Wrestling Book. Ed. Marcia Curtis, et al. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt, 2001, 95-110.