Speech Graduates Didnt Hear Essay, Research Paper
Jacob Neusner begins his speech by informing students that they have been prepared for a world that does not exist. According to Neusner, this fictional world is the reality of Brown University, where students demand praise for mediocrity. Additionally, he criticizes students who abuse those who do not give it [praise]. While students may appear to be Neusner s primary targets, he also ridicules his fellow professors who allow the students behavior to persist. Therefore, this fantasy world is most likely the collective product of both student and professors apathy. Instead of appropriately responding to the students lack of effort, professors tolerate the students indolent behavior simply because they do not want to be bothered and, ultimately, to be rid of the students. Ironically, Neusner condemns the same type of behavior that he simultaneously encourages by not taking any action; his hypocrisy is the foundation of his exaggerated accusations against both students and faculty at Brown.
Being a supporter and frequent employer of sarcasm, I initially found it difficult to disagree with Neusner s basic point of view. This man is obviously releasing some cumulative frustrations. His essay is clever, and his effective exaggerations heightened my awareness of student laziness in its less severe forms. However, his sweeping generalizations left him little opportunity to mention the possibility of any diligently-working exceptions to his extreme oversimplifications.
While Nuesner admits that professors take the easy way out by awarding students easy Bs for ordinary work, at the same time he seems genuinely puzzled as to why students continue to hand in work that will receive inflated grades. Indeed, if a student s only ultimate goal is to receive good grades, and if these grades are attainable without considerable time or effort, he or she will most likely take the less challenging path.
In one respect, Neusner attempts to place the majority of blame on students and to make professors appear as the less guilty, exceedingly tolerant accomplices. But, regardless of blame or its distribution, the fundamental issue remains the same. Students don t care enough to put forth their full effort; professors don t care enough to demand more effort. It s an adversarial relationship caused by and resulting in a downward spiral of mutual apathy and a severe decline in educational standards.
In another sense, through his use of We the faculty, Neusner negatively categorizes the Brown faculty as an aggregative and arrogant lump of unconcerned, permissive clay. However, the reality of the situation reveals at least one major distinction. Even if a clear mechanism for differentiating did not exist beforehand, this essay becomes a device through which Neusner distinguishes himself from his colleagues. Unlike Neusner, the majority of Brown professors remained on the payroll after this essay was published. And, once again, Neusner declined to recognize any potential exceptions to his generalization-those professors who may actually care about upholding academic standards.
Even if students are as lazy as Neusner claims, they don t appear to be alone. Furthermore, laziness is rarely rectified by those who are too lazy themselves to point out in a timely manner that laziness exists. But, to be fair, as long as professors and students remain mutually exclusive groups, no one can claim to have a completely unbiased opinion on this issue. Please keep in mind that the views expressed above are only those of a careless college student defending his right to put forth the minimal amount of necessary effort.