The Banking Concept of Education

I found what Paolo Freire had to say about the pros of problem posing education and the cons of banking education was very interesting. I never really thought about different ways of learning until know. Before, learning was just something everybody did. However, when I think about it there are certain ways that I do learn and retain things easier. It's hard for me to pay attention in big lectures because it is just the professor reciting the criteria and the students memorizing and taking notes. During smaller classes a discussions, I find it easier to learn because of the interpersonal communication between the teacher and students and students and students. I find that when I'm able to ask questions and bounce ideas off of other people, it's easier to come to conclusions and find understanding. Freire states in his essay that "problem-posing education bases itself on creativity and stimulates true reflection and action upon reality, thereby responding to the vocation of men as beings who are authentic only when engaged in inquiry and creative transformation" (Freire 82). Freire states that we are only actually human when we are challenged mentally and spiritually. I understand what his point is. If someone walks around their whole life just day to day and does not use the full potential of their brain, it's almost more animalistic. Sleep, work and eat. We've all been given the ability to speak and ask questions, so why not use it? To me it's the same as not taking full advantage of the right to vote. If you're giving all these tools, then why not use them?

A Kind Word for Bullshit

I can honestly say that I enjoyed reading “A Kind Word for Bullshit: A Problem of Academic Writing” by Phillip Eubanks and John D. Schaeffer much more than I enjoyed “On Bullshit” by Harry J. Frankfurt. We’ve been talking about authors caring about what they write in class and I felt nothing but frustration and some sort of mockery after reading Frankfurt’s essay. I felt as if every word of that 67-page book was complete bullshit. I kind of felt as if Frankfurt is laughing at everyone who read that because I have a feeling that he knows what he wrote is actual bullshit.

On the other hand, after reading Eubanks and Schaeffer’s response to “On Bullshit” I felt them caring about what was being said about their profession. They didn’t use extravagant words and definitions to try to get a point across. I felt them being real and trying to get their point across that what Frankfurt said is not entirely true. Neither Eubanks nor Schaeffer deny that their colleges and students use “academic bullshit”, they are trying to prove what they think bullshit is or isn’t.

Out of the whole essay, one quote stuck out to me.

“Even though some composition scholars have critiqued academic discourse as a form of Enlightenment-inspired hegemony, almost no one advocates completely abandoning academic styles and standards. If academic writing is bullshit, then bullshit is what we teach” (Schaeffer 374).

I believe that this is Eubanks and Schaeffer trying to say, “This is what we do, if you don’t like it, then so what.” At least that’s what I would say. Everyone uses bullshit from some time to another. I believe it is part of human nature. Everyone wants to look good to the people around them. If that means hyping up their story a little or even adding a few ten dollar words to their essay, then so what? It’s not the end of the world. Does bullshit deserve to have an essay written about it and another response essay in return? I don’t think so. Bullshit, in any form, has always been and will always be around as long as there are people to spew it out.