Analytical Essay

The modern construct of education is a topic yielding much debate and controversy amongst educators, administration, students, and several other demographics of people. While almost none would argue that modern education is ineffective, some scholars have disclosed their opinions pertaining to what exactly should be valued in education. Noam Chomsky recently discussed his concerns in a Skype session adapted into a piece entitled “How America's Great University System Is Getting Destroyed.” Chomsky argues that the business side of education is currently wrecking a once effective system. In relative similarity, Michael Bérubé vaguely addresses some of his own concerns with the education system in a piece called “The Humanities, Declining? Not According to the Numbers,” but these claims are outshined by his far more prominent argument that the current statistics claiming that humanities majors are down are inaccurate. Although they do so through starkly contrasting viewpoints, both authors demonstrate an intense desire to construct an epideictic argument in which their audience will be inspired to take action, or to change their current opinions concerning higher education, although one does so far more effectively and appropriately.

Chomsky’s argument is saturated to appeal to the ethos of his audience, which is most likely comprised of a community of higher education. He addresses a very prominent issue in the university system- the hiring of graduate students whom he describes as “cheap, vulnerable labor.” Graduate students work for very little, but strive to achieve a lot at the same time. In this respect, they are ideal candidates for the economic manipulation Chomsky believes the modern American university system feeds off of. He describes a corporate business model, wherein administrators are given virtually unchecked power while subordinates tread water, struggling to even make the surface. Chomsky adds, "All of this is perfectly natural within corporate business models. It's harmful to education, but education is not their goal.” Chomsky is upset with the disgusting irony, which categorizes the business of education, and rhetorically constructs his argument with the epideictic purpose of inspiring change within his audience. Chomsky discusses at length the indoctrination of young people, namely through indebting them with student loans, which he says are even worse and harder to pay off than credit card debt. Students and Graduate students are mutually indoctrinated, as graduate students are given little control or say over what they teach, large class numbers, and a large amount of extracurricular work coupled with almost no job security. Just in case that wasn’t enough, Grad students are also given sparing rights when it comes to being a part of any sort of legislative decision that will absolutely affect their lives as educators. This predictably, further disenfranchises them from the purity of teaching, and adds to their job insecurity. Therefore, they are less of an educator.

As a result, the authenticity of education suffers, as does the individual experience of each student and graduate student. But this is cheap, and in an education system fueled not by the desire to learn but the necessity to make money, it has become all too normal. Chomsky makes the drastic, but rhetorically effective point that this model of education is almost identical to that of a “tyrannical ideas.” Chomsky attempts to further massage his audience’s ethos appeal by discussing a philosophy originated during the enlightenment, which is in essence it “doesn’t matter what we cover, but what you discover.” This is the purest purpose of education as argued by Chomsky in this piece, that “It's not to pour information into somebody's head which will then leak out but to enable them to become creative, independent people who can find excitement in discovery and creation and creativity at whatever level or in whatever domain their interests carry them.” This of course, is an incredibly liberal view of education, one that as argued by Chomsky, definitely needs somebody to stand up for it these days, which he urges his audience to do at the end of his argument. While Chomsky’s argument is matted in ethical charm, it is not immune from certain biases that may contribute to the weakening of his argument. It is evident that Chomsky is very opinionated on this subject matter, and as Rebecca Jones discusses in her piece “Finding the Good Argument,” “one of the rules of a good argument is that participants agree on a primary standpoint and that individuals are willing to concede if a point is proven wrong.” (Jones, 158) Chomsky’s opinionated argument does not strike the audience as something that would be willing to back down if proven wrong.

Michael Bérubé’s piece, “The Humanities, Declining? Not According to the Numbers,” is equally concerned with the rhetorical construction of modern education in America, but for different reasons than Chomsky. Bérubé is less concerned with the authenticity of education and the validation and security of educators, but more with refuting and redefining the phony statistics that have been used to construct the argument that humanities programs are a dying breed on the cusp on educational extinction. He references specific statistics and in a significantly snarky tone refutes them with different, as he claims more accurate statistics. Personally, I had trouble trusting this author’s argument. While he did include specific facts to backup his claims, these statistics were really no different than the preceding statistics he gave from different sources. The piece was published online and even included a fairly active comment section, wherein readers could construct their own discourse situation pertaining to his argument. In the Rebecca Jones’ piece “Finding the Good Argument,” she discusses what exactly makes a good argument, while also providing examples of situations wherein logic tends to be flawed. In these situations, “what is often missing from these discussions is research, consideration of multiple vantage points, and, quite often, basic logic.” (Jones, 158) While it is conceivable that Bérubé’s piece was constructed using a basis of logic, it seems to be almost negated through his clear bias and sardonic tone. It is of course easy to fall into this construct of forming an argument, especially when one hold personal allegiance to the specific topic he or she is arguing for or against. This concept is discussed at length in the Lazere piece “Viewpoint, Bias, and Fairness: From Cocksure Ignorance to Thoughtful Uncertaint.” While it is easy to become jaded to one’s own bias, it is even easier “for us to recognize biases in other individuals and supporters of other groups.” (Lazere, 128.)

Due to the clear web competence of this article, it would not be too much to ask for hyperlinks to these alleged studies. Perhaps, more details as to why exactly they were flawed. Another issue I found with the credibility of this argument was the author’s almost cryptically sarcastic tone, which at times was confusing and out of place for such a serious subject matter. He seemed pompous, but not at all willing to admit that his argument was anything but sound. This of course, is detrimental to a good argument. Lazere says, an argument is more credible when they are out front in admitting to their own subjective viewpoint, possible biases, and special pledging.” (Lazere, 129) Bérubé’s argument does not do this and as a result even encroached upon pettiness at times, like when the author referenced the opposing work of his colleague whose work he “never liked and who is probably undermining the English major as I type.” (A good argument should not be saturated in personal attacks, but matted in careful facts and rhetorical strategies to affect and convince one’s audience of something. The author’s stance on the humanities is hard to pinpoint throughout his argument. His sarcastic tone leads one to believe that he is not in support of them, describing them as "useless degree programs that won't get you a job and that you will have to explain to your parents." Despite his clear distrust for the rationality of getting a humanities degree, Bérubé does note that he finds it interesting that today, in juxtaposition to all the rhetoric constructing the jobless future of humanities majors, as well as the “sell out” complex that many once creatively driven students face in college, the number of humanities majors has remained just about the same as it was in the 1970s.

A bit of a curveball is thrown at the reader in Bérubé’s final paragraph wherein he directly states that there is a problem in the humanities, but “it is a crisis in graduate education, in prestige, in funds, and most broadly, in legitimation.” For the first time in his argument we are given a more supportive approach to the humanities in this final argument, an utterance that is not unlike the liberal construction of Chomsky’s argument about the destruction of the American education system. But unlike Chomsky, Bérubé is far less concerned with this than he is with the misinterpretation of statistics concerning it, which I believe weakens his argument and portrays him as an unreliable source. This is of course evident whenever one is attempting to argue for or against a topic that he or she is very passionate about, which in both author’s cases definitely applies to their viewpoints towards higher education. Chomsky and Bérubé construct their arguments differently, yielding them different levels of credibility, but the core of their argument maintains its purity in that it is primarily concerned with the issue of improving modern higher education.

Works Cited: 

Bérubé, Michael. "The Humanities, Declining? Not According to the Numbers." The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle Review, 1 July 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.

Chomsky, Noam. "How America's Great Education System Is Getting Destroyed." AlterNet. N.p., 1 Mar. 2014. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.

Jones, Rebecca. "Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?"Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. Vol. 1. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor, 2010. 156-79. Print

Lazere, Donald. "Viewpoint, Bias, and Fairness: From Cocksure Ignorance to Thoughtful Uncertainty." Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy: A Critical Citizen's Guide. N.p.: Paradigm, n.d. 125-38. Print.