See the Layers

Emerson mentions many of the great philosophers and thinkers of the past (in parallel style). They learned by following their ‘tutor’ and spending one-on-one time with them. Just as each of these philosophical greats learned by spending one-on-one time with their mentor, we should learn in the same manner. Contrary to how Emerson believes it should be, students are now stuck in classrooms with 20 to 30 other kids, many of them there by force. Students that do want to learn are not getting a quality education because teachers must deal with the problem makers. If we learned in small groups or by ourselves, this would not be a problem.

I agree with Jon-Michael. If we had one-on-one sessions then we would learn so much more. The teacher could focus on one persons problems essentially instead of the class problems.

Emerson creatively uses a series of rhetorical questions to emphasize that the current way of education cannot supply genius students. Just as Aristotle’s genius arose from one-on-one tutoring, scholarly students are created by individual tutoring.

When a teacher must instruct 32 students at the same time, students cannot learn. When all students in a classroom do not learn at the same pace, students cannot learn. When a teacher must instruct 150 students in a day, they do not enjoy their job—and students do not learn. The current educational system—with over expended teachers, with classrooms filled with unmotivated students, with a combination of students with different intellectual abilities—is predestined to fail. Emerson makes a very interesting point, and I agree with him.

Emerson is countering the opposition to his argument (refutation). Educational instructors are opting for the easy way out, even though it is not the best way. Those who want to learn are paying the price. “It is so easy to bestow on a bad boy a blow” is a clever example of alliteration.

The author’s use of asyndeton creates a focus toward all of the great philosophers. This focus also shows the author’s point in that these well known philosophers had to focus—and not in the classroom—but one-on-one time with their mentors.

sorry…that was ment to go in paragraph one.

The author’s use of asyndeton constructs a focus toward all of the great philosophers. This focus also shows the author’s point in that these well known philosophers had to focus—and not in the classroom—but one-on-one time with their mentors.

When teachers have to teach so many students that have such different learning abilities it gets difficult. They work so many hours trying to figure out ways to make it easier on them and the students. In the end, they end up despising not so much the students, but their job as a whole.

Emerson uses parrallel structures to present a strand of well-known philosophers that were taught their great skills from their personal tutors. This individual training is nearly opposite of today’s teaching methods. Kids try to learn in classrooms-a place where they get no individual attention- with 30 other kids. Students without natural intelligence often have to get individual help outside of class. I agree that it would be easier to learn in smaller groups, but there would be more teachers, which would lead to higher taxes.

I also agree with Emerson. With as many students that teachers have, it is hard for them to keep up with grades as well as teach a class with as many as 32 people in it. Most students are on a totally different level than those who sit around them in class. This makes it so much harder for the teacher to do their job well—to give each student the best education they can have.

I agree with JMP as well. If there was a smaller teacher to student ratio, the students would benefit much more. There are so many distractions in the average classroom setting, that it makes focusing difficult for those who genuinely want to learn. This makes me question what it will be like when i get into college and am in a class of 120! Can you still receive a quality education when the teacher doesn’t even know you by name?

I agree with you both. That is why I enjoy the different levels of classes in our high school. In our junior high, there is tutoring most days after school for certain subjects, which allows more one-one-one time with the students who need more help.

I agree that schools are “dumming down” their curriculums for the average student. The students with the aptitude and the ethusiasm for learning are being pushed to the side. Those students in the majority are catered to, whether they deserve the attention or not.

Emerson uses anaphora and parallel structures in several places in this paragraph.

I also agree, Megan. It seems there is no real challenge in today’s schools. Do you think it is because we are lazy?
Emerson uses an intersting pattern of sentences variations in this paragraph.

I think that many school officials and administrators today are at a loss for ideas to reform teaching habits just like Emmerson. Do they put morality into their lessons or leave it out? Do they accomodate the majority of students who lack excitement or concentrate their efforts on the few who show brilliance?

I agree with Emerson as well. Teachers have many students and can frequently spread themselves too thin trying to accommodate all their students and keep up with grades. Because students do not learn at the same rate, teachers just doing their job (educating students) can be a seemingly impossible task. It is hard to motivate and inspire apathetic and uninterested students to learn, and as a result the eager students suffer.

I agree with all those above. Beer and Circus discusses the problem of our classrooms having too many students-and teachers not caring to spend time with them. Emerson seems totally against this, stating that organized colleges only create problems, and for good reason. When students can’t learn, they turn to other things or start believing that to follow someone great, like learners used to, is pointless. Unfortunatly, in our day, it seems to be. Almost no one would hire you for being around and learning from someone great if you didn’t have a diploma to show for it.

I think many people are lazy, Clare. The few that do really want to learn are held back by the majority who just want to say they have an education, but not really achieve one. I agree with Emerson that many people could be genius’ if they had the chance but schools seem to make learning so torturous and boring that hardly anyone wants to learn.

I also agree with everyone above. A one-on-one with teachers and students would provide for a much better education, but that is difficult during the current times to be lucky enough to have such a small class of students. But Lizzie made a good point. How will many of us be able to handle our college classes when most of our teachers won’t even know our names??

I also agree that many people of this generation are lazy. They want everything in life to come easy so that don’t have to put a little effort into achieving a goal (like doing well in school). I also feel that students who dedicate themselves to doing well in their classes are not given as much attention or support as students that are average.

Emerson makes a good point. I can see this in my own education. In my smaller classes, the teacher is in more control and therefore the students get more out of the class. However, in my larger classes, the atmosphere is chaotic. The teacher is in constant battle with the noise and disarray of the classroom. Not as much is accomplished in this class because more effort must be put into maintaining a calm classroom than teaching a lesson. To comment on Lizzie’s point, I think that just because a larger college is known for its great academics, some students might benefit more at a smaller college because of the personal attention available to them.

Colleges these days seem to be more business-oriented and just pass kids through their academic program almost mechanically. If more students actually shared a genuine interest to better themselves by learning there might be a change in our schools. Some kids seem to lack the key component, “enthusiasm,” and are at times confused as to why they go to school.

One of Emerson’s most powerful pieces of work as he tries to sum up some of the most general topics of life that I think are still under debate. His use of asyndetons makes the language all the more persuasive.

Emerson is saying that all men have a yearning to learn but as it gets harder the determination grows weaker. But these men with enthusiasm that has died down still enter college despite their chance for genius has been blocked. In doing so he elaborates that it inhibits the learning process of other students. Making classes smaller to aid eccentric, genius students is simply not a realistic option. So what must be advocated is teaching styles like Mr. Spark’s which reaches the bottom and the top of the intellectual ladder. Also, the intellectual working with the non-intellectual will bolster team work skills, most important skills in life. The fact that the intellectual would have to fight to learn would increase his drive ensuring a greater chance of his success. Therefore, he would not be another wasted mind. There are many intellectuals who view themselves so far above the common man and are so eccentric that they run themselves out of being a useful member of society. I think if you teach on a level playing field than those who wish to learn will gain not only the knowledge but also the competitive skills to succeed in the real world.

I think the good of the many does outweigh the good of the few. Teaching more people at large universities produces many slightly above average people into the workforce. A general increase in intellect in the majority equals that of a high intellectual increase in a minority. The synergy of teams can beat individuals, and as always two heads are better than one. But for those extremely intelligent there are better universities which will grant them entrance. Therefore, their brain is not squandered and the many are educated and the world is better off because of it.

I agree with Grant. All men do have a yearning to learn, whether it be for welding or mathematics, its simply what makes us men. I can easily vouch that the excitement for higher education hits its low normally at age 19, when a student is entering his or her Freshman year in college. The feasibility of arranging classes to fit scholastic ability as well as personal drive is at best irrational. The pretentious “yuppies,” though intelligent as can be, find this to be insulting and tend to migrate in search of something they can’t find, thus filtering their uses out of society. What an education boils down to is the drive and determination of the pupil. For instance, even in some colleges/universities, a student can still get an education that is rather swell despite inhibitors such as bad classes/bad faculty. If you do teach on a level playing field, those who do have the drive and determination to learn will do so and those who do not will trickle out of the system thus naturally raising the level of the class.

Every year, the education in America (in particular) seemingly reaches new lows. The laziness and lack of interest in a secondary education is directly translated into higher education. For example, when freshmen come to Lyon many of them have never read a textbook — ever. Our admissions aren’t that easy, its just the decline of high school curriculum from educational doctrine to makeshift beliefs designed to let kids graduate. Winnie the Pooh isn’t advanced reading despite some people’s opinion.

It’s amazing that Emerson wrote this in the 1800s when it so brilliantly applies to today. Our public schools (though so vital to our public’s well-being) are not first and foremost used as a tool to teach our children how to learn. They instead teach them how pass tests, how to fake intelligence, how to fully appreciate their mediorcre position within our global competitions. These classes do not inspire students to be great, they drill into them with military repetition the things they must learn, the way they must speak, and the knowledge they must seek. Even those who desperately want to seek knowledge are often dissapointed by the classroom and its departmentalized routine. We don’t need to learn what to learn…we need to learn how to learn. Many of our schools, like those that Emerson is addressing, fall short of this need.

The rhetorical questions repeated toward the end not only empasize the repetition of the current learning process, but the endless questions that stem from this nonsensical way of learning.

This caught my eye because when we talk about schools and their deficiencies, we always talk about the detriment to the students, but never the teachers. What happens to the person who so loved what they had learned that they wanted to share their knowledge with the next generation? What has become of their fervor and their passion for learning? The system has destroyed it. It has made them so neurotic with time limits, strict guidelines, and monotonous work.

And in turn, how does this affect our students? They do not see a scholar so delighted in their work that they wish to learn. Why would a student want to absorb something that has seemingly made their mentor so extremely miserable?

Emerson’s diction, citing words like “martinet” and “police court”, illustrates the tyrant that teachers are forced to become when they enter the system that is public schools.

I like how he compares this system to medicine, and calls it a drug. This metaphor states that just as any drug can be addictive this system is addictive in the form that it is easy. He is saying that instead of using this staple, more would be learned by making one’s own discoveries.

I agree Lizzie I have had teachers that could not adequately teach the class because of how many students were in the class, and it limited the time she could spend with each individual.

. I agree with all the posts above. In this paragraph Emerson is showing how these great philosophers had a yearning for learning, but with out the one-on-one time they would not have gained as much knowledge. Being able to have this with the teachers is very beneficial to students. This is one reason college tends to be more difficult for freshman college students coming straight from high school. They are use to having teachers that can go through and explain things step-by-step. In college the huge amounts of students puts a damper on the amount of help you actually get from your professors.

I also agree with Megan and Clare. The majority of today’s society is filled lazy people that are not willing to work towards a goal. In school they are not willing to challenge themselves they want what they can pass by easily. Therefore, teachers cater to the majority of the students rather than the more advanced, willing students. In the long run, the more advanced, willing students are not getting the challenge they need to do what they are capable of.

I agree with you Tory. In schools today students are in classes with 20 to 30 other kids. If one of those classes has one or two troublemakers, the rest of the class is distracted. Smaller class sizes allow the teacher to have one-on-one time with each student. Students who actually want to learn are able to focus a lot better when they do not have thirty other kids distracting them. I think high school is bad, but I cannot imagine being in a college class of over 100 students. This also makes me wonder how one can get a good education when their teachers do not even know their names.

I also agree. Many people are worried about the effect of large classes on students’ but most do not consider how the teacher feels. Teachers who have around 30 students in each class and have 4 classes a day are often worn out by the end of the day. They must constantly come up with lesson plans for each class and are constantly grading papers and thinking of new ways to go about teaching their students. How can teachers enjoy their job when they are teaching large classes with some students who have no desire to learn?

I agree with all of the above posts. Really, I wish that most of my classes were primarily one-on-one because if my classes weren’t so full and chaotic I am positive I could get more out of the lesson. Maybe the challenge of keeping up in the midst of chaos is part of the whole school experience, or maybe it’s true that education has lost it’s touch throughout the years. Either way it is a sad view of our society today.

I can understand what the author is saying here; are we not all supposed to be given a chance to be great and mighty and brilliant while in high school? What is the difference between being great and being given the chance to be great? I feel that the author believed we should all have a chance to prove ourselves, and that while we were in school we should begin that task.