|
1)How children are socialized today determines the destiny of society. Unfortunately, 2)we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society.
I find the speaker's dual claim to be specious on both counts. The claim that how children are socialized today determines the destiny of society, while appealing in some respects, is an over-statement at best. And the claim that we have not yet learned how to raise children can bring about a better society is poorly supported by empirical evidence. Consider first the speakers assertion that the way children are socialized today determines the destiny of society. I concede this assumption partially convincing in the aspect that the children raised well, in other words, in a socially acceptable manner will serve good in maintaining the order and virtue of society. However, when viewed more closely, it does not necessarily indicate that the way they are raised dominates the destiny of society. Many kinds of socialization is acquired arbitrary, rather than intentional or planned way. School playground, for example, promotes the foregoing statement. No parents will teach children to play in a certain way when they let their children go outside. Furthermore, socialization is just one of the many elements to make a better society. There had been many cases of socialization achieved by inner belief, parental influence, and a will to overcome the challenge rather than a planned socialization. Consider the case of Helen Keller, who is well known for overcoming her physical disabilities by the help of her teacher and parents. This means that alternative factor can attribute to make an individual crucial for better society. Consider next the speaker's claim that we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help build a better society. In short, the speaker's second claim flies in the face of the empirical evidence, as I see it as follows. If the 'better society' in context is to respect other's opinion, preserve individual's right, and make diverse culture and international exchange more energetic, we have been executing those education in the past 50 years and I'm quite supportive that the education we receive and give is a obviously helping us to make better future. In sum, we have to consider some other chances of socialization rather than education. And the speaker is missing the point that many other elements to make better society rather than socialization. Lastly, existing education is also intended majority's need for a better society. Thus, I fundamentally disagree with both aspects of the speaker's dual claim. "Never once in our 150-year history as a university have we clarified our objectives. How, then, can we hope to adapt as an institution to the new challenges facing higher education. As a first step in this evolutionary process, therefore, we should send out questionnaires asking faculty members why they teach, asking students what they want from this university, and asking former students what they gained from their own education here. When the replies come in, we can tabulate them and formulate an official statement of our educational mission. This will surely result in improved programs at our university."
In this memo, the speaker claims that they need to establish the objectives of university to come out improved education programs and they will ask professors and students to figure out the purpose and outcome of the education. Careful scrutiny of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the author's claim.
First of all, a threshold problem with the argument is that it assumes that the educational mission can be founded based on the questionnaires from professors and students. Although they are the critical elements when considering education mission, they can't be the decisive factor. Education mission is more firm and universal issue that should be researched and studied through various aspect of society's needs and academics for a long period. The pool that the author suggested might be suitable for deciding minor issues like remodelling cafeteria or other facilities but inappropriate for establishing education mission.
A Second problem involves with the claim the establishing education mission is related to improved programs at the university. Although it looks entirely possible, education mission is more abstact definition and value while programs are practical and elaborating issue. In order to improve programs, the university should better ask students and academics of things they satisfied and disatified.
In sum, the argument is weak on grounds stated above. To strengthen it the argument's proponent must prepare the relation between questionnaire and education mission and reasonable device to help improve the university's education programe.
"The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."
The speaker claims that we've been wrongly focusing on some individuals as the heros of the historical events and achievements although those were made by a number of anaymous people. I tend to disagree with this claim. To begin with, in the study of history, it is unrealistic to learn all the people involved in the making of the one event. Besides, the purpose of studying history is not highlighting some famous individual. Admittedly, almost nothing is done by sole individual. For example, it is widely said that Christopher Columbus has discovered the America in 1492. However, we can easily guess that many people would have been involved in whole procedure to make him able to launch the voyage. However, although Gutenberg, for instance, invented the printing press had many people helped his work, what if we should learn all the people's name and process in studying history? It is totally ineffective if we have to, in time wise and efficiency wise. Besides, what we should not forget in studying history is its purpose is not just to highlight some individuals' names and to give fame. The importance should be lied on co-relation of historical events and the present which enables us to predict and prepare for future ultimately. To sum up, with few exceptions, I concede that it stands to reason that we should learn history with key individual involved in certain historical event. To identify all other people engaged is unrealistic and ineffective in the light of actual studying process and purpose of history.
|
||||
