1. Shorris' project is simply to provide any "student" with a background education that makes them successful in their other pursuits. A sort of school that teaches higher thinking and logic and reasoning over preciseness and correctness. The new liberal school was embracing the ambiguity of its new education style. Shorris does a good job at picking out what he thinks are the most important things to teach. He discovers a sort of foundation for a sturdily taught education. However I believe his argument is limited to a certain domain because i believe this education would not work for someone out side of the lower class. Precisely because the background education is different, the life style choices are different, It was best said in the beginning to the essay people needed to be taught "a moral alternative to the street". He did just that with the types of literature and knowledge he introduced those students too, however what if an alternative to the street isn't needed or you have had other outlets in your life because of your economic status. Well, I don't believe those people are looking for that same sort of liberal education. Yet i do believe that the curriculum of his school is sound for teaching basics to people and offering them "a moral alternative to the street".
2. Much like Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" the alternative education presented by Shorris is by all means the light to witch people find their way out of the cave, Identifying for themselves the world in front of them.
3. Would this sort of education work on people not impoverished or depressed. Or would this sort of education be just another history class about the grey men of the days way back when? Would the effect of the alternative education be the same for students from different economic classes?
Given the chance, would you participate in an alternate style of learning or would you question your peers' questioning?
No comments:
Post a Comment