Right now, I am wondering why famous fast food chains such as Burger King and Mcdonald’s don’t offer iPhones (and other electronics) on their menu. I would love to walk into a Mcdonald’s and order an iPhone 6s with fries. Can you imagine if you order a Xbox One and double cheeseburger at any “fast food”chain? It sounds weird and crazy. Maybe Molly Worthen would know?
After reading, the New York Times article. “Lecture Me. Really.”from Molly Worthen, an University of North Carolina assistant professor of History and two additional articles from Slate.com columnist, Rebecca Schuman (“Professor Shouldn’t Only Teach to Younger Versions of Themselves”) and from some students (in a writing course) from the University of Illinois (“A Lecture From the Lectured”), in which both have arguments towards Worthen’s articles (and from one to the other), I just thought about my iPhone and a cheeseburger.
From the start of our educational careers, we learn about two separate ideas that feuds with one another. One of those ideas is creation; which is connected to art and opinion. The other idea is evolution; which is connected to science and facts. The feud of these two ideas are prevalent in two of the three articles that I mentioned in this writing.
Molly Worthen’s NYT article that started the whole lecture debate within education audiences, is an example of the mention ideas clashing. In the article, Worthen was trying to go against the argument of anti-lecture believers who are on the science side of the field. This is evidenced when she referred to quotes from a chemist and a physicist who are both are from Harvard, both against lecturing and both who (may I mention again) are involved with science. She also brought up a 2014 study that showed “test scores in science and math courses improving after professors starting using active learning.” It’s easy to conclude that those professors either taught math or science classes. Worthen states that she is a History professor. Bringing up anti-lecture professors who are in the scientific field is not a good way to support her pro-lecture claim; especially with her being in the art side of the field. It’s bias.
Just in case, any of you may be thinking, about history being on the same lane with science and math, I am here to tell you that’s not really true. When it comes to history involving the actions of people in the past, most of us learn by opinion. In the art side of education, we are all in a system in which asks us to suspend of our disbelief and take in what our teacher tell us, so we can pass “their” tests and get good grade that allows us to move up. Active learning is not really useful for teaching an “introductory American history course.”
Response to her article should be simple. However, there are some who over thinks and complicate the unnecessary. The response article from Slate.com columnist Rebecca Schuman, is just an air filled rant. It’s like Schuman saw the article, became emotional and just started typing. It’s hard to convince people in that fashion. She had points but she failed to point out of Worthen’s factually clear flaws in the own belief. You can’t say Burger King has a better cheeseburger than Mcdonalds because you went there 10 times in the past. You have to survey people who are doing that now. A better way to respond to an article like Worthen is shown by students from the University of Illinois.
In their article (which is responding to both Schuman and Worthen), the students pointed out that both articles failed to “quoted an actual college student.” It’s was like Schuman and Worthen were treating students as third wheel dogs who do not know what is good for themselves. But, that’s not what really made their response good. If you had read the article, you may notice that the student did not use facts from resources to support their claim. The reason is because they are the facts. They are the ones who are experiencing the whole thing. So, they were able to use their current experience as facts to construct a reasonable objection. The “A Vision of Students Today” video from Mike Wesch almost gives a visual of what student of the University of Illinois are saying. Overall, their article is good but not perfect.
A group of students from a writing class from another school cannot speak for students in the other majors and schools. A current columnist for a website cannot say what works for any student today. A history professor who is on the corner of wondering why Best Buy does not sell burgers and have clear bias towards Harvard and science should not be able to exploit students to support her own belief. All of the articles, took part of an idea and turned into a separate subject to question. Students are able to pick their own classes so it is their responsibility to pass their classes.
Do you think that some people are rightfully or overreacting to Worthen article? Why?
Do you think any of the mention articles and videos are exploiting you as a student in any way?