School Is A Mission

I read the article about the benefits of social and intellectual awakening in schools and I really liked it. To me this is what schools should be about. Teachers should be trying to bring out the passion to learn in us not cramming our minds with the nonsense of having to respect them which is why we should listen. I think that if you see that a teacher is passionate about his or her subject it gives you more motivation to learn and respect the topic. Take for example physics with Mr. Z. Science has always been my worst class. I couldn't seem to understand the mere concepts and basic skills. Physics however I my best class. Not only do I complete understand everything but I can also help my peers when they don't understand it which is something I could never do before. I think this is because Mr. Z's teaching technique is thorough and he shows a passion for what he does. It's like he genuinely cares that vf = vi + at. This relates to the article because Ms. Kenny thinks that to make good teachers better you have to give them the "freedom to let their passion flourish". I think that this is why Mr. Z is like this (and the fact that Ms. Cartilidge was his mentor).

I think all in all these schools sound really good. The part about them not fighting because it's not allowed is a little extreme because fighting is not allowed in any school. But overall if they are improving that good in reading and the eighth graders math and science test really recieved 100% proficiency then what's bad about the school? It's doing what schools are suppose to be about. Teaching students the basic tools and necessities in life.

The article about liberal arts education I think really does define what liberal arts schools do. They are for people who don't like the pressure or discipline of structured schools. For someone who has gone through both a structured education and a liberal arts education I think it's what's best for you and what fits for you. Liberal arts schools such as SOF have positives and negatives. Some positives being we learn to be leaders rather than to blend in with your other peers, we are shown that it is our responsibility to accomplish tasks, and I think we are given a greater understanding of the world because we recieve different points of views from all our teachers on how things are done. Some negatives are that if you slack you fall behind quickly and there's not much help to get back on track, work is your responsibility and no one elses to remind you, and if you need structure there really isn't much of it. Structured schools (I call them this because I don't know the correct term for them) have both positives and negatives as well. Positives being they re usually bigger which makes it easier for some students to find their place, they provide discipline to those who need it, they offer specific classes for specific career choices. The negatives are (in my opinion) you are taught to blend in rather than stand out, they teach from textbooks (it's like their Bible), and students are usually very dependent on the teachers to give them the answers.

So again it depends on what you like and prefer. To me the liberal arts education works becasue although sometimes I do need more discipline with my studies I love the way we are taught in SOF. The fact that you can make your own decisions in most classes what you would like to study further and what makes the most sense to you. I agree with this article on what liberal arts education offers and how this helps students with their future. As for the person who commented on the article about their own experience at Dickinson (I read some of their comment). A liberal arts education is not for everyone and if he didn't like it then he should have left when he realized not stayed until the end. I feel you have to use liberal arts education in our own way to recieve the benefit. Internships are a perfect way to do this.