Paul Stoller’s “My Struggles with Anti-Intellectualism,” and Charles Murray’s “what’s wrong with vocational schools.”
Paul Stoller’s text titled “My Struggles with Anti-Intellectualism” explores the need to recognize critical thinking as part of academia. The same idea on the mode of teaching learners prevails in Charles Murray’s text “what’s wrong with vocational schools.” However, the approach to presentation varies due to background differences and areas of interest concerning popular education. In “My Struggles with Anti-Intellectualism,” the difficulty that Stoller confronted in attaining intellectual capabilities as a student of social science influenced the focus on role of critical thinking in academia. The scholar inferred to his background in anthropology at West Chester University in claiming that American is disadvantaging self in considering critical thinking less important in education. His view corroborates Charles Murray’s idea on the need to support intellectualism in vocational schools, and accord special learners’ necessary attention. However, the author expresses a divergent opinion on was of advancing intellectualism in popular education. As a result, the exploration of the text is necessary for the contextualization of the similarities and the differences in the view of the author on popular education in the quest for intellectualism.
Stoller writes about anti-intellectualism as a concern in popular education. The Washington D.C born writer claims that modern education is overlooking the significance of teaching critical thinking, yet such is integral for advances in the sphere of academia. The idea is manifest in the question posed to the scholars by the father “what are you going to do with yourself” (Stoller 4). The statement validates Stoller’s thought that people are inclined to consider critical thinking inconsequential despite the knowledge being critical for societal advances. The professor holds the view that colleges should treasure critical thinking as other sciences because of the benefits of teaching the same. Stoller considers himself a beneficiary of anthropological studies and subjects less valued in society.
Murray expresses views on personal education by asserting that colleges should formulate ways of educating gifted students. The 8 January 1943 born scholars consider the modality adopted in vocational schools beneficial in a society that is promoting anti-intellectualism. The idea manifests in the presentation is the existing structures are overlooking the variation in students’ needs and understanding. Reading the introductory section provides a glimpse into the view of the author as recounted, “today’s simple truth is that far too many of them are going to four years college” (1). Murray suggests that people are forced into models that inhibit intellectualism.
The first element of similarity in the presentation is the explanation of the need to restructure curricular to encourage customization of teaching to promote intellectualism. Stoller, in his text, alludes that people should treasure critical thinking as part of academics as opposed to only qualifying courses as law as prestigious and beneficial. The idea substantiates Murray’s claim that a significant majority of learners are forced to fit in systems that overlooks their needs. As a result, a majority are not attaining the desired benefit. The writer poses “Wants Wrong with Vocational Schools” to evoke a thought on the need to support the development of the institutions. He is lamenting at America’s emphasis on university education and other programs that constrict student’s creativity. Murray believes that most students are on remedial because of the inflexibility of the programs. The approach to argument in the text proves that Murray supports Stoller in encouraging intellectualism by focusing on courses that serve the interest of the learner. Both oppose the categorization of units as prestigious and less important. Stellar infers to experience learning social sciences subjects in the same wat Murray grapple to deal with special capabilities. The thoughts of the two are similar. However, they adopt a different approach to explanations. As a result, reading the texts is necessary for the contextualization of the way for redressing challenges in popular education.
The difference is the presentation manifests in the explanations on the modality for promoting intellectualism. Stoller supports teaching critical thinking universally, unlike Murray, who encourages customization of programs. The researchers’ background acquiring intellectual skills also influence the difference in view on ways of handling students with special abilities. Stoller adopts a softer tone and proposes recognition of diversity in teaching ungifted, but Murray encourages the same to join crafts studies. Subsequently, the explanations use rhetorical appeals to explain the same idea. Another difference features in the section describing the role of intellectualism in society. Stoller considers the ability essential even in sciences leading to the visualization of the subject differently from Murray. Murray, on his part, argues that intellectualism is not as beneficial as craft skills to special students.
After reading the sources, one can claim that Stoller’s and Murray’s views concur on the need to restructure educational curricular. The researchers infer to their background in education in claiming that models adopted should consider student’s needs. Differences in their explanation manifest in the remark that gifted students deserve special attention. Despite the variation, the review of the sources is essential in contextualizing the concerns related to popular education.
In conclusion, Stoller’s “My Struggles with Anti-Intellectualism,” that explore the need to recognize critical thinking as part of academia and Charles Murray’s text “whats Wrong With Vocational Schools,” that encourages recognition of the differences in abilities of learners provides an insight into the concept of intellectualism. The scholars concur that advancing intellectualism is beneficial to societal advances. However, the two differ in their explanations of ways of promoting intellectualism. Nonetheless, the accounts provide an overview of the reality concerning popular education. As a result, the review of the sources is necessary for understanding variation in perception on a common subject on education.
Works Cited
Stoller, Paul. “My Struggles with Anti-Intellectualism.”
Murray, Charles “What’s Wrong with Vocational Schools.”