Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Emerson's view of an "ideal education"
In your textbook, The Language of Composition, read Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay "from Education" on pages 189-195. Afterwards, select one of the eight questions on page 195 in which to respond with your blog. Be sure to indicate which question you are responding to and develop your response fully - and of course, since this is an informal writing, you may include your own ideas woven into your discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why does Emerson criticize schools as bureaucratic institutions? To answer this question, one must look at the two arguments he presents. His first argument draws on his image of the ideal schooling process. His second argument is his main point and shows how schools have lost their purpose. Using examples easy to relate with, he degrades institutionalized schooling for several important reasons. By proclaiming the ideal schooling process to be self-instituted, he also draws attention to the motivation of the human race.
ReplyDeleteEmerson's ideal schooling process is self-instituted. When people want to learn, they will learn far beyond the simple facts a teacher can provide them with. The great teachers of old did not force people to learn from them; they taught the willing and eager, those whose quest for knowledge drove them to acquire it. Emerson uses an example in paragraph four that supports his argument. Sir Charles Fellowes wanted to learn about an archeological site he had uncovered, so he travelled all over the world to learn the necessary skills to make sense of it. He learned about the Greek language, ancient art, history, pigments, coins, and many other points of study that allowed to understand what he had found. His new knowledge allowed him to reconstruct the destroyed building in the British Museum. By immersing himself in something he was interested in and passionate about, he learned far more than he would have in a school. He created his own school and taught himself from the expertise of masters. Because he was motivated to learn, he learned well and to his fullest capacity.
Emerson's second point is impassioned; organized schools are detrimental to learning. Schooling is supposed to bring together those of genius and those with the potential for genius. However, schools are home to people with little motivation. These people are the most numerous kind of people found in schools, and schools have changed to accommodate them. Instead of continuing to teach those who want to learn, schools modified their approach to best suit those who do not care about learning. The teachers work with large groups of idle minds, and teach to their level. Because of this, students who are motivated and want to learn are held back from true learning. Schools are boring, close minded, and very disciplined. This "military" discipline arises from the fact that the students cannot discipline themselves. In forcing teachers to also become rule enforcers, students detract from their own potential.
By presenting schools in such a harsh manner, Emerson shows what sets some students apart from others. The motivation of a student will determine whether they feel held back by their peers or if they will be content with the pace of their classes. Students with enthusiasm and motivation will dive into subjects they find interesting, doing whatever they find necessary in order to learn. Others will only do enough to get by. This underlying principle created the "bureaucratic" institutions that are seen today. Instead of centers of learning, schools are referred to as "diploma factories" that only care about turning out as many students as possible.
Emerson's image of school as a bureaucratic institution is well founded. Looking around at the schooling that occurs today, one can see numerous examples of the typical unmotivated student. Students who are average are becoming far more common than those who excel. No one sees anything wrong with this because of how common it is. With the standards of the culture, genius is being left behind. For true learning to take place, schools need to return joy and motivation to students.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI fully agree with the notion that those with a passion to acquire knowledge are the ones who will truly succeed in doing so. On page 191, Emerson states "Nature provided for the communication of thought by planting with it in the receiving mind a fury to impart it. 'Tis so I'm every art, in every science. One burns to tell the new fact, the other burns to hear it." When one experiences a passion or a longing to obtain information regarding a specific subject, they will do so, given the circumstances permit it. They then become bursting with the need to relay this information to another, and another is bursting to obtain it. However, not everyone is affected by this great quest for knowledge in the same areas. While some may long to gain knowledge regarding the whereabouts of Ancient Egyptian kings, others may be inclined to research the behavioral patterns of a hummingbird. Each person is stemmed with a specific passion, and if they were permitted, I believe these people would gladly pursue the knowledge that comes with their passions. In addition, I believe that if each person were to be schooled based on their passions, and that which they desire to learn more about, schools would be overflowing with students eager to learn, eager to understand a little bit more about the intricate aspects of this life.
Delete"Emerson refers to educating "a boy" and "a man" and uses masculine pronouns when referring to students. As a reader, does this gender bias affect how receptive you are of Emerson's ideas? Are his ideas equally applicable to women? If you do not think so, then how would they need to be changed to be applicable to both men and women, boys and girls?"
ReplyDeleteAs I read this piece, I very quickly noticed the prominent use of the masculine pronouns as well as the terms "a boy" and "a man." It seemed as if Emerson was referring solely to the boys and men are being schooled, creating a sense of exclusion and therefore inattentiveness from the female perspective - at least that is for me personally. This tactic of referring only to the masculine population is introduced in the very first paragraph. For the second sentence states "It is not for you to choose what he shall know, what he shall do." Immediately, this piece of writing gives off the impression that it refers solely to boys and men, and therefore, alters the reader's perspective greatly. The female audience is subconsciously forced to view this writing as a third party, considering both the ideas and analysis of Emerson while noting also the responses and behaviors of men. This immediately puts up a wall, disallowing female students to relate to the piece on a personal level.
In contrast, had Emerson included particular pronouns that would relate to both girl and boy, which he very easily could have, the piece would suddenly become broadly expansive, drawing in both men and women, allowing each to relate to the piece in their own way. A wide variety of Emerson's ideas were quite applicable to both genders - if not all of them. For example, Emerson states in the third paragraph on the first page that "Somewhat he sees in forms or hears in music or apprehends in mathematics, or believes practicable in mechanics or possible in political society, which no one else sees or hears or believes." When reading this excerpt, I was impacted greatly by it, and applied it instantly to the lives of males and females across the world. For it is true that each person is capable of their own perspectives in the world. Each person is able to view the world in a way unique to themself. However, due to this statements's bias towards the male population, one becomes inhibited by its impact, only able to relate it to the male population, although it can sorry easily refer to both males and females.
Another example of this gender bias is exhibited by the excerpt, "The joy of our childhood in hearing beautiful stories from skillful aunt who loves to tell them, must be repeated in youth. The boy wishes to skate, to coast, to catch a fish in the brook, to hit a mark with a snowball or a stone, and a boy a little older is just as well pleased to teach him these sciences." In this example, the gender bias is apparent. It is the common idea that it is solely the young boys who are so willing to learn these skills, that is skating, fishing, hitting a mark with a rock. And if every boy is like this, says the common opinion, every girl must be interested not on such masculine activities, but rather those that have been set aside for females. This idea, as exhibited in the modern childhood, has been proved wrong a countless number of times. These days, it is quite common to see a young girl sporting a bobbed haircut, wearing athletic shorts and a spiderman t-shirt. Many young girls have taken interest in activities and events generally set aside for males, but what is the harm in this? When reading this excerpt of Emerson, a female initially makes subconscious connections to the "skillful aunt who loves to tell stories." However, this connection is immediately cut off with the use of the term "the boy" in the very next sentence, regardless of whether or not it relates also to the particular female.
I disagree. I don't think that gender bias affects writing at all. The human experience is universal. So, what difference does it make if during the whole essay, the only pronoun used was "he?" You have to take into account that in Emerson's time, boys were really only ones who were educated. Women were seen as housewives who took care of the children and cooked. Girls in those days wouldn't have fished or hunted. It was considered to be wrong. I don't really believe in gender bias, but period bias. That is, the writer tailors the pronouns/ topics to the time period in which they were writing. Today, it is more common to see a variety of pronouns used simply because women's rights and roles have changed since the 1800s. Maybe if Emerson was alive today to see the reverse roles of men and women, his opinion would change, and he would use a variety of pronouns.
DeleteGender bias is still a prevalent issue even today. In Emerson's time, women were never educated, and remained mostly in domestic roles. Women today are educated, and no longer remain in the house. They can pursue any job they wish, and even take part in politics. Men and women may have equal rights, but they are not equal. Both men and women are stereotyped based on their gender, and this limits them in many ways.
DeleteOne of the most prevalent stereotypes is associating weakness with women. Children often call each other "girly" when they show fear of things that others find commonplace. "Don't be such a girl" is a common taunt when someone does not want to do something. These phrases teach gender stereotyping from an incredibly young age. When children begin stereotyping each other, it carries into their later life. Girls feel inadequate, and their self confidence is undermined. Boys look down on girls, and, when they are men, they will look down on women. These viewpoints do not just happen, they are learned. Why is it that children learn to call each other names that degrade the female sex?
Women struggled for a long time to be seen as people. They fought to have equal rights and suffrage, and tried to break free of their preordained roles in society. This change was hard, but it finally happened. However, their battle has not yet finished. Women today are still not equal to men. This inequality arises from the mindset of men, not their actions. In order to be truly equal to men, women must break free of their stereotypes. This process will be hard, but it will have an indescribable reward. Women will finally be seen people, and will not be judged based on preconceptions.
Men also suffer stereotyping, but it is not as prevalent as female stereotyping. Men are often portrayed as insensitive, coarse, or strong. While these qualities have nothing to do with being a man, they are associated with society's image of a man. Men who exhibit traditionally female qualities often hide them from other people. They are afraid of rejection or being laughed at, so they pretend they do not have these qualities.
Both men and women stereotype each other. These stereotypes lead to gender bias, and close minded thinking. Women are seen as weak, and men are seen as strong. These thoughts are ludicrous. How can one adjective accurately describe an entire gender? A gender is so much more than weak or strong. Men can be weak, and women can be strong. Men can be afraid of spiders, and women can be marines. Weak, strong, brave, and cowardly are adjectives that should describe an individual. Only female and male should be used to describe an entire gender.
When reading this, it did not bother me that he used muscular pronouns. I am learning the Spanish language which has a huge impact on how I look at his writing. In Spanish when there is a group of girls, they are called "ellas." When there is a group of boys they are called "ellos." But when there is a group of boys and girls, they are called "ellos" as well. So having a group of multi sex individuals being addressed to using macular pronouns does not bother me. I believe that if I did not know Spanish, it would bother me to some degree but not as much.
DeleteI agree that gender bias will always be a problem whether it is associated with education or even the workforce. I feel as though people do it without even thinking because it has become a common thing. In emerson's days, there were not as many women going to school and getting jobs. It could also come down to the point he did not even think about it that way when he wrote "Education", but I do agree that there is a certain amount of gender bias within the text.
DeleteIn what ways is Emerson's advice appropriate to a child's first teacher-his or her parents?
ReplyDeleteIt is often said that a person's first and most important teachers are their parents. Parents are there to teach you how to walk, talk, and eat. They shape the morals and ethics of their children by how they act. Emerson gives some great advice in his writing that can be taken into account by not only educational school teachers, but also by parents. He mentions guiding with a motherly hand and disciplining in the correct ways. Emerson also suggests that students follow what a leader does. If a parent follows this system, education to their children can be effective.
Emerson states that the students are the only ones who hold the key to their education. This applies to children and their parents as well. Parents can shape what the children do, but they will be who they are as an individual. It is important to be ready to guide a child in the right direction when they are getting off track, but they also must live on their own. Correcting mistakes is vital, but it must not be done by yelling about the bad. When discipline comes into play, keep a child on track but supply them with knowledge. If a child is misbehaving, tell them what will happen and why it is bad instead of simply telling them not to do something. If a parent carried their child throughout life, would they ever learn to walk?
As a student needs to understand his or her basic addition and subtraction before moving onto algebra, so too does a child need to understand his or her rules before applying them in different situations. Lessons must be mastered by mistakes. When a child is at fault, the foundation must be strengthened by a leader. A parent is someone a child looks up to in order to guide them through their life. Emerson mentioned that students will learn from what a teacher does in nature. The same concept applies to a parent. If parents hold their own tongue, children will hold theirs. If they speak out, the child will also share those ideas. A child is a reflection of their parent, even if they are their own person.
Religion and political views are good examples of this. If a child grows up with parents that believe in God, then they most likely will believe in him as well. Young children do not understand what religion is most of the time, and will listen to what their parents think until they are old enough to choose for themselves. By that time in life, the person usually stays with that religion unless something dramatic happens that makes them want to convert. The same thing happens with politics. Most children and teenagers do not understand politics and what the parities are. They will be democrats or republicans depending on what their parents are. One with parents from both parties has to choose what they want to be, however. This shows how parents influence their children, and how their children follow them.
Emerson has stated that someone wants to tell and another wants to hear. It takes patience to explain a concept to someone, but once they learn it, they can share what they learned with others. In the education system today, people are trying to get by with the minimum. In parenting, this cannot be done if a child is to grow up right. They need time and attention to be who they want to be. They can do it on their own, they just need a hand to guide them.
I agree that students are the only ones who hold the key to their education. I think that the situation they are in influences it as well. A child is going to look at their parents' views when deciding their own. How many times has a person heard, "You are just like your father/ mother...." when talking about beliefs/opinions? I am always told that I am opinionated like my mother, yet calm like my father. And then, people tell you that you are like that because that is what you grew up with. I think that children are a product of their environment.
DeleteAlmost everything we learned or where taught, was brought up by our parents. They are the basis of of our opinions. Just like your example of how if our parents beleoves in God, we will then grow up believing with God. It's like our parents are the basics of out options and thoughts. That can be traced thoughout everyone's family history. So is it true that our first teachers are our parents? Absolutely.
DeleteThroughout the essay, Ralph Waldo Emerson refers to the "natural method" of learning that takes place throughout life. The idea of it is this: if a child likes the subject, and takes an interest in it, then they will pursue it. It will be there only object, and they will be driven to conquer and learn as much as they can about the subject. I think that this is true. When you think about it, you probably know someone that loves something so much that they devote as much time as they can to it. It can be anything from a sport, to a subject in school, to a certain skill. They may learn about the topic or skill from a loved one or a trusted adult. Either way, Emerson believes that a child has a natural desire to learn and question. Likewise, the adult has a desire to teach that child the things they know. They enjoy passing things on to the next generation. As soon as they child knows the information, they may take a liking to it or not. If they take a liking to it, then it will consume them, and that will be all they want to learn about!
ReplyDeleteI think that you still see this today. Think about this class. How many have us have said that we work harder and put more passion into our writing when it is actually something we want to write about? Lots of us, me included! When we like something,we automatically want to know about it. We want to answer our own questions and fulfill our curiosity.
One of the interesting qualities of natural learning is that a teacher can't make us want to know more about a subject. If we want to learn more, we will. If we don't, then we will just not pay attention while they are talking! The teacher can yell at us all he or she wants, but that is not going to make us want to learn the subject any more or make us pay attention. Yet, if we are interested, we will be attentive. In the essay, Emerson gives the example of young doctor going to great lengths to witness a new surgical technique. Why? He wants to perfect his craft, and he is interested in medicine. That's why he is doctor! He is interested in it, so he goes anywhere he can to get new information to learn more about his craft. His teacher can't force him to go those lengths to learn. Hence, the "natural method", because the learning is not forced, but done on your own.
I think that people are naturally driven to learn a subject or skill. Although I have never heard it called the "natural method", I think that is a good name for it. I always called it determination. Either way, I think people that primarily learn through the natural method are more driven and more apt to succeed because they want to learn on their own.
While I agree with the notion that one will ultimately put forth more effort to obtain knowledge on subjects they are passionate about, I believe that this is true only to an extent. I disagree with your statement "If we want to learn more, we will. If we don't, then we will just not pay attention while they are talking." While this may be true for some of you, I do not believe that this applies to everyone. When being taught about a subject I am not particularly interested in, I do not immediately disregard it, for what would be the purpose of only obtaining knowledge solely on what interests you? Learning means acquiring knowledge that will be useful when attempting to exert particular skills later in life. This means that one cannot simply ignore that to which they do not feel a particular inclination. If that were the case, I would not have any knowledge of mathematics, as it is not a subject I am particularly fond of. And what good would that be, as mathematics is a skill that is imperative in many people's daily lives. It does no good to "not pay attention" when being taught something that does not interest you in a profound way. Rather, when one discovers that which they are passionate about, they will excel in their attempts to learn more about the subject, while still having obtained the knowledge of that to which their passions were not particularly inclined.
DeleteNatural learning is one of the best ways to learn. When someone pursues an interesting topic, they put all their effort into discovering everything they can about it. However, this also limits their ability to learn new things and discover other interesting topics. Students should use natural learning to enhance the learning they already receive, not as a replacement of traditional learning.
DeleteStudents will often dismiss subjects as boring before they even give them a chance. They have other interests, and disregard anything else as meaningless. They may label this as natural learning because they only pursue what interests them, but that is only half of natural learning. Natural learning also requires the discovery of an interest. For natural learning to work, students must give every subject a chance to interest them.
Giving a subject a chance requires more than passively sitting through the first few classes. One must continuously give each part of the course time to develop into something interesting. By rejecting a course because it does not begin with an interesting topic, a student robs themselves of a chance to learn something that would genuinely interest them. History may be a student's least favorite course, but they may discover that they have a passion for the life of JFK. This discovery would never have taken place if they had dismissed the entire history course as a waste of time.
Natural learning is an amazing way to truly learn about a subject. When someone devotes themselves to figuring out everything they can about a subject, they will learn more than if they are presented with facts and figures. However, applying natural learning to a course should not allow a student to completely dismiss the course. It should allow a student to discover new facts about a subject that they would not receive in the class.
It is obvious that a child struggles more with subjects that they do not care much for. This reflect upon our certain passions and how we strive for perfection when it comes to the things we care for. Also, teachers play a big role in how we learn and how we choose the subjects we are passionate for. If they make the learning of a subject more desirable, it will lead us to want to learn more about those topics.
DeleteOlivia, I completely agree with you. I know that I can be very dismissive of certain topics. If I am not impressed within five seconds, I will just zone out. I do understand though, that I have to learn some things that I would probably be better off not knowing. But...uhh...yeah. I feel like I, personally, need to work on being open to boring topics.
Delete2.) In what ways is Emerson's advice appropriate to a child's first teacher - his or her parents?
ReplyDeleteEmerson describes the students first teacher to his or her parents. He does this to show how a first teacher needs to show the guidance that parents show their kids. As kids, they have to learn the right and wrong things to do. This shows that the teacher needs to have motherly guidance to show the student the right ideas. They also need to show the reason why the situation is wrong. That is so they can learn for their mistakes to not do it in the future. When they make mistakes they cannot punish the kids hard. They need to encourage them to do the right thing. They also teach them to think for themselves. This is the start of their own opinions and imagination. This is key to a childs way of learning how they use their minds to become creative and their own unique person. Their opinions start at this step when they have their first teacher. They will show the teacher respect like they show their parents. A first teacher is the mother of that class. They have the responsibility to teach them kids and correct them just like the parents do at home. In reality, the child is learning from their parents ways and the teachers ways. What Emerson was portraying is that parents teach the kids just like the teachers teach the them also.
I believe in Emerson's ideas on this. For myself, I want to be an Early Childhood Educature to help likes make the best of their first years of education. I want to be the "mother" if their education. I want to be able to help kid develop themselves. Some children do not get the motherly touch at home. Some may not have a mother, others might have one that is physically their but doesn't help he child. These are the situations I want to fix. I want to become that students mother and give them the help they need to become their own person.
Madison, that is a great field to go into! Especially for you because you would be great with children! It is important for children to have a strong foundation. Some of this can start at school, but it needs to truly begin at birth because they still have three years before they start school. People without parents that are willing to change their ways to show their children what is right are at a severe disadvantage. Teachers need to fix that and guide them while they can. Teachers and parents really have the same job: to love their children enough to guide them through every situation, but to love them enough to let them go sometimes. This is one of the hardest things for parents to do, but when it is done, it is worth it.
DeleteI agree with everything you wrote. The one part that really stuck out at me was the idea the a teacher should the child from right and wrong, and help the decipher the difference between the two. When the child does wrong to the parent should explain why it is wrong and give a small punishment or a punishment worthy for how wrong the action is. If a parent does not explain why something is wrong the child is most likely to preform the same action once more. The idea of knowing right from wrong helps secure and ground for the basis as the child grows and matures
DeleteI also think this is a great field for you Maddie. I think that you have many of the qualities that Emerson describes! One of these qualities being excited and energized with children In the aspect of knowledge. I feel as if you would be able to energize children and spark their interests. This quality in teachers is very important because children need to be engaged at an early age. If this happens they will usually stay interested in school throughout their career. This is what happened in my case anyways.
DeleteMadison, I kind of agree with you. I believe it is a teacher's responsibility to teach a child the difference between right and wrong, and early education. Although teachers sometimes need to teach a bit more. One very mundane example I have is that subtracting does not really exist. Subtracting is technically adding a negative number. But I did not learn this fact until I was a freshman. So I believe that teachers need to teach a bit more, and parents also must do some teaching of their own. I don't know I that makes any sense. And as basically everyone else has said, that is a fantastic field to go into. I hope you succeed in your future endeavors.
Delete“Emerson refers to educating “a boy” and “a man” and uses masculine pronouns when referring to students. As a reader, does this gender bias affect how receptive you are of Emerson’s ideas? Are his ideas applicable to women? If you do not think so, then how would they need to be changed to be applicable to both men and women, boys and girls?
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I want to say is that I liked a lot of his ideas presented in this essay. A lot of these ideas are still applicable today. That being said, he used masculine pronouns a bit too much. As a guy, I guess the first few times he used masculine pronouns, I did not really mind. But after like page two, it became a little bit ridiculous. I felt a little bit disenchanted after that, so I do understand why some females would get disenchanted much earlier than I did. I understand why he used all the masculine pronouns. Back in the 1800s, women did not usually get educated. So why would he write a letter using female pronouns if a women was never going to read it or need it? The common thought back then was that women would never be educated. Obviously, this is no longer the case, as the average woman has a higher grade point average than the average man. But anyway…that is not really the point of this. Like I said, I felt disenchanted and a bit awkward while reading this. The masculine pronouns got really old, really fast. I still was very open to his thoughts, but I felt like he just decided women were never, ever going to read it. So I was a bit disgusted.
So he uses all these masculine nouns to describe things that men and boys do. He has a whole paragraph about science and what “he” must do to be successful in “his” future scientific career. Again, back then women were not scientists. Because after all, how could a woman understand all the complexities and anomalies in science. It just will not ever happen. If I could see Ralph Waldo Emerson today I would punch him in the face. Most of best scientific students in our school are women. Women have also made some of the greatest discoveries in science history. So…I guess a lot of the things he says do apply to women. But back then they did not. I guess the only thing that needs to be changed is the pronouns in his essay. The ideas contained in the essay are not outdated, but the idea that the essay was only intended for guys is outdated. Like I said in the above paragraph, I liked a lot of the ideas. Just, I do not know. The whole essay made me feel really awkward. Still, it was good read, and if I really felt like another person would enjoy, I would recommend it. But I still felt it was sexist, and it made me feel like just...really weird reading it.
I do not know if this is a bad thing, but I did not seem to be bothered by the masculine pronouns in this writing. Like you said, this was written before women were educated. How could Emerson write this about something that did not pertain to what was going on then. If he wrote it directed towards females then people would think that he was crazy. It would be a made-up story that individuals would have a hard time considering. I read it for the material and I thought that it was interesting. Just because it was not directed towards women does not mean that I could not take any of the points in his writing and use it as advice. I also do not think that it would be a good idea to punch him in the face! That is just my opinion, though.
DeleteThe use of the male pronouns did not affect my reading at all. I feel as if Emerson uses the male pronouns for the ease of writing. I do not think the pronouns matter. I also do not think that Emerson meant to be sexist in writing this article. I also do not think that it is okay to punch Emerson in the face. Emerson brings forth many important points on the topic of education and I thinks they are very useful.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI did feel very "disenchanted" by the use of masculine pronouns. I identify as a feminist. Although I know Emerson lived in a time where education was strictly for bosh, it still disgusts me that people thought that way and that many people still do. It disgusts me because even though this was written two hundred years ago, these kind of writings and ideas about superiority in masculinity are what brought many discriminations among women. The ideas that women could not be educated still lives among some men today who believe women do not belong in the career field and they only belong at home in the kitchen and tending to children. These ideals are why today's world is in need of change on the way women are valued and the different in pay. So although Emerson lived in a time way before it was even near acceptable to educate women, it still disgusts me
DeleteNick, I personally did not find this essay sexist. I was not distracted by the use of the male pronouns nor was I offended by the use. Quite honestly, I did not realize the use until the ended of the reading. I believe he used this use because it is a lot easier to say he, rather than he/she or him or her, and so forth. Also, he is male and he can relate to what he is writing about. I did not find an issue with the masculinity in his writing.
Delete"In what ways is Emerson's advice appropriate to a child's first teacher- his or her parents?" Emerson's advice throughout the reading can directly relate to parents of a child. Emerson states that there is equal delight in both teaching and receiving knowledge. I think this is a very powerful statement. It is safe to say that our favorite teachers are the ones who are excited and energized while teaching. They make us excited to learn and thirst for knowledge. If a child starts their life with parents that are happy to read to them and answer their various questions, they are going to thrive more as opposed to a child that was never read to and never was given the drive for knowledge. I think that this advice from Emerson is one of the most substantial statements throughout the entire article and I agree with it completely. If a child starts their life with parents that are upbeat and positive about a child's inquisitive nature, I believe the child will go much further with their education.
ReplyDeleteThe opening paragraph of the reading states that a child should not be pushed passed what they want to do. Many parents go overboard when a child is young. They push their child to constantly read or study. In my own experience, my parents did not push me so much as encourage me to take art in educational activities. They provided me with books at a very young age and read to me when I asked them to. As a result, I started reading the newspaper to my parents at the dinner table while I was in preschool. I believe that this advice that Emerson gives is useful to parents because a thirst for knowledge is so pivotal in a child's early life. It gives children a jumpstart in their education which can lead them to success later in school. If a child is pushed too hard at a young age, they will rebel against their education even at a young age. Children that I know who are pushed to constantly do their homework or are hounded by their parents about their grades are going to hate everything about school. I believe that parents should be excepting of their child's knowledge levels, but they can always encourage their child.
Parents are the first step in a child's educational career. If a child starts out their life being pushed or completely being ignored in the respect of education, they are going to grow up hating school and knowledge. Emerson makes many good points about the responsibilities of a parent as a teacher. He states that a good attitude on the part of a parent or teacher is crucial on the part of the outcome of the child's attitude. Parents are the key role in starting their child off on the right foot for their education.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn what ways is Emerson's advice appropriate to a child's first teacher—his or her parents?
ReplyDeleteEmerson makes good points on advice for the first teacher. The teacher should guide, and be a consciences to the child, not only the enforcer or the friends. Applying this guide is the key to a successful child. However in times of need, I believe a parent needs to be a friend, and sometimes needs to be strict to get a point across. The balance of friendship and enforcer allow a steady flow into a successful education. In Emerson's writing on education he explains to the first teacher, a parent, the many methods on how to successfully educate and raise the child to his fullest potential. He explains through his works that the teacher, parent, does not have total control on the child's education or how the child behaves. "It is not for the you to choose what he shall know, what he shall do. It is chosen and foreordained, and he only holds the key to his secrets." These were the words spoken to the teacher of the child by Emerson. This shows a great example of how a teacher cannot control every aspect of the child's life and expect to learn. The child is the only one who can bring about their education successfully. Parents and others assist with the knowledge, but he is the only one who has the choice how he spends the knowledge. Learning doesn't come from another's experience, but from personal experiences and advice given along the way. The experiences leads to a better education and respect for ones self being. Emerson expands on the idea of respect. If you respect the child and have respect for yourself, you can become one with the child's thoughts, not just a teacher. A parent should act as a conscience and help guide the child towards the best path for him. Allow the child to choose but guide the child in the best possible direction. When a parent is too strict, the child may sometimes try to test the waters on what he can or cannot do. If the parent is too loose in parenting, the child may do what he wishes because he feels as if his parents do not care. The same goes with learning, when to strict the child will ignore or feel too much pressure and have constant fear, and with loose parenting, the child may not care because the parents do not care. A glance needs to be maintained parenting. The balance is the key to a child's successful education.
Ralph Waldo Emerson was an influential writer in the 1800's, but his ideals are still relevant in today's society. One of his main ideas I feel is that guidance from a teacher is necessary, but they are not there to define who we are as people. It is important not only for students to respect teachers, but for teachers to have an equal respect for students. It is important for a teacher to never lose enthusiasm in learning, or else students will follow suit.
ReplyDeleteIn his writings, Emerson says "Nature loves analogies, but not repetitions," and "Respect the child. Be not too much his parent."!These ideas are very important in schooling systems. In my belief, schools and teachers should give a student information from both sides of an argument and let them decide their own ideas on the matter. Although it may be a school's goal to get students to agree with the same principles, often times it is forced. No student wants someone else's thoughts on life shoved down their throat. Abortion is a very controversial and touchy subject, which should under no circumstances be correlated into a school. If a parent on the other hand wants to educate their child on the matter, then that should be their choice. I notice constantly the way our school tries to shove kids into a single direction without giving them the option to see it from another perspective. We are brought into discussions and even an assembly where any other opinion being spoken would be frowned upon and not welcomed. In my belief, it is not the job of a school, even if it is Catholic, to only educate children on one view of a topic and to be close-minded to other views. I personally feel as if this is what Emerson tries to get across. A little guidance is good from a teacher, but teachers should not take it upon themselves to form student's opinions for them or imitate their parent's job of teaching children on controversial viewpoints, which many of the student's parents may not even agree with. A school's goal should be to teach facts, not mere opinions. Nature does not want everyone to think the same. If everyone thought the same, the world would be a boring, dull place. A student needs to be given tools to build their mindset, not an already built one.
Another main idea I found in Emerson's essay is the key of enthusiasm and respect. If teachers are suppose to be our role model, and they are not excited to learn or to do experiments, then that conveys to the student that learning this is not important or exciting. Personally, I get a lot more excited about topics when the teacher shows their passion and enthusiasm on a subject. I tend to get bored when it feels as if a brick is talking to me. If a teacher gets offended if he or she is corrected, then that shows the student that they should do the same. I really love his idea of respect. Many teachers simply do not understand the concept of respecting students and how it impacts their education. If I, as a student, feel disrespected by a teacher wether it be one on one or in front of a whole class, I generally do not want to go back into that classroom or have to confront that teacher again. It is ESSENTIAL for there to be mutual respect for a good learning environment. Another way it is detrimental for a student to not be respected, is it may make them feel dumb or below the rest of the class. In some cases, this may make students discouraged from learning and going to school.
I find many of Ralph Waldo Emerson's ideas on education hit the nail on the head. His ideas should not stay with him in the 1800's. They should be prevalent in today's society. Learning is essential to today's life. Guidance is necessary, but it cannot overstep boundaries to where it is simply replicating certain ideas into a student's mind. It is imperative for teachers to portray enthusiasm in learning so students wheel the same. Emerson was a man wise beyond his time on the ideas of schooling.
Our education is fully reliant on our ability, as students, to want to learn. We do not just wake up sporadically with an endless amount of information in our heads. I feel this is Ralph Waldo Emerson's ideal perception of education. He feels as though we all have the potential to learn as much as the person sitting next to us if we are driven with the same intensity as they are.
ReplyDeleteWithin his writing Education, he speaks of a natural method by which we should be instructed to get the absolute result. That natural method involves students being thought in a way that allows no room for failure, but at the same time gives us some ability to decide our own fate and how we want to learn. He brings up the point that in the real world when we are permitted to get jobs that have the potential to effect thousands of people, there is no room for mistakes because unlike school it is not just the student being affected. I both agree and disagree with his ideas when it comes to his idea of a natural method.
Natural means different things to different people. Some people see striving for perfection to be the norm, while others view a typical method upon the phrase "whatever happens, happens." I for one agree that everything should be done to the best of ones ability. For example, if I was a surgeon and I was doing a cranial operation and I said "Well, this looks close enough," what do you think is going to happen? We need to strive to be our best.
When Emerson states that "the Natural Method forever confutes our experiments, and we must still come back to it," I believe he see it as another point to where we must strive for greatness. One does not achieve their full potential on the first time of trying something, it takes an extreme amount failures to get the point of success. Perfection is not an overnight thing, Ralph Waldo Emerson thinks that perfection can be achieved, but at a slow pace. He also points that it is a repetitive action. One does not get something on the first try, I do not care if you said you do because at one point in time we all sucked at something we excel at now. It is the fundamentals. Emerson states that "Not less delightful is the mutual pleasure of teaching and learning The secret of algebra, or of chemistry," this means that there is a mutual spot for teaching and learning. That not only applies to students, but to teaches as well. Our education comes from those who teach us and motivate us to do better, if they are not encouraged to learn more and be open minded like we are suppose to be what can they teach us?
Our natural method of learning is partially reliant on our own passion for what we want out of our education, and it is partially based upon how the classroom opens our minds. One cannot be told that one way is the only was to think. We need to be encouraged to think outside of the box in order to achieve the greatness that we are asked for by the people around us. I believe that Emerson saw the potential for the classroom to be a place for us to achieve our greatest potential without interference.