Respond to this message and post your discussion questions based on the Greene article and Chapter One from MacNamee and Miller.
Also, course reserves tip from Liz Simpson: when you go to course reserves, search by instructor last name (Stevens) and then click author to get the full list of available readings, alphabetically ordered.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly do we mean by "we" are all in the train car together? Is the use of "we" intended to be homogenous or heterogeneous? Also, how does each individual in the train car identify with their fellow passengers?
ReplyDeleteWhen we talk about meritocracy, I think we're really talking about the perception of meritocracy. Don't each of us view fair v. unfair differently? Also, how does our identity - race, ethnicity, gender - influence our perception of meritocracy?
In response to Hooks’ article, what is the role of the author’s voice in academic writing? Can and should the writer’s perspective be separated from the content of the text? What implications does this have for students as individuals and as learners?
ReplyDeleteIn response to all of the articles, but mainly Greene’s article, is there still a singular set generic goals that can be considered the “American Dream,” or are people more focused on the individual, short term goals? What implications does this have on education?
Oops, I missed the note about a question from the McNamee article until after I posted my first post.
ReplyDeleteOn page 17 McNamee and Miller note that “modern forms of discrimination, although less blatant, continue to deny their victims full access to the American Dream.” In 2008, Jennifer Siebel Newsome directed and produced a documentary, Miss Representation, looking at the media’s portrayal of women and the stats related to women in leadership positions. What role does the media play in controlling who has access to the “America Dream?”
In the Greene article the phrase "equal opportunity" is used many time. This phrase is also defined in this article as, "equality of opportunity means an equal chance to leave the less fortunate behind in the personal quest for influence and social position"(187). How does this concept connect with the ideology of meritocracy? And how does this farther connect with educational polices that many U.S. states have in place?
ReplyDeleteThe McNamee chapter discusses the origins of meritocracy in America and the ethical beliefs connected with this ideology. Thou the religious connection with meritocracy has lessened in modern times does this ethical belief still play a role? If modern American still see a connection between success and ethical behavior? If so, could this be the persuasion used to maintain order?
In response to your questions about Greene's article, meritocracy can be loosely defined as a placement in society based upon your merit or success. Therefore, meritocracy could be viewed as beginning among "the less fortunate" then earning a place of "influence and social position" within society. It can then be argued that this meritocracy ideology is in place among the schools. With the No Child Left Behind Act, the amount of testing children must complete before moving on to the next grade has increased. It has also placed stress among the schools and faculty to push children to "pass the test" instead of cultivating an informed, inquisitive mind that can be self-sustaining and able to apply the knowledge to the current or future situations.
DeleteAs for the questions responding to McNamee & Miller's article, there is definitely still a connection between success and ethical behavior. The quote "nice guys finish last" comes to mind. However, children are taught, and even trained (especially students with special needs) to interact with others in a specific way. Be nice to others, don't bully, etc. are pushed on kids, but then political agendas and "climbing the corporate ladder" involve underhandedness, backbiting, and sabotage. But all of this has to be done in an underhanded way, thus maintaining the appearance of being an ethical, moral person. If schools are affected by this meritocracy belief (you earn what you deserve), and meritocracy is governed by sly defeat of others ("a dog eat dog world"), then we're teaching our children how to be aggressive to "get ahead" in life. I think if we can redefine success, then it might be easier to create an educational system that promotes the growth of all at the levels and abilities for each individual. Thoughts?
In the McNamee and Miller chapter, they discuss how meritocracy and the idea of the American Dream became ingrained in the United States' mythology and ideology through the country's economic, political, and religious formation. Since the economic collapse of 2008, do you think the American mythology of meritocracy has changed or faded? For example, does the Occupy Wall Street movement represent a step away from the population's blind belief in the American Dream?
ReplyDeleteIn the Greene article, she states that the American Dream has been a dream about beginnings, continually new beginnings, and equality had to do with having the right to begin (179). Later in the article she quotes that De Tocqueville saw equality as an irresistible passion. If we view equality as an irresistible passion of having the right to begin, do you think that because human nature is driven by its passions that we have continually been on what seems to be a never ending journey of trying to begin in a place that will create the best possibly outcome for our future?
ReplyDeleteMcNamee and Miller speak at length about the American Dream. They talk about many factors such as social and cultural capital, the idea of who you know and what you have received from inheritance all play a part in the so called "American Dream". Do you think that the American Dream is somewhat outdated because of the society which we live in now? Also, is the American Dream just for a thought of non-citizens, and instead we that are citizens should call it the American Reality?
In chapter 2, MacLeod asserts that schools in working class neighborhoods and middle class neighborhoods are so different in their teaching, curriculum, and function in society that one produces employers while the other produces workers. Despite MacLeod’s continual critique of capitalist society’s effect on schooling, I had a hard time buying his argument that these schools could be so inherently different that one could be capable of crushing children’s aspirations. Do you agree with MacLeod? Do you think his argument is strong?
ReplyDeleteWhat factors do you think contribute to The Hallway Hangers and the Brothers difference in views? According to MacLeod, they live in the same environment and presumably attend the same school; the most notable difference he points out is race. However one only sees obstacles when envisioning his future while the other buys into Regan’s view that “Anything is possible in America if we have the faith, the will, and the heart.” Why?