I think the option of going into military and receiving support for tuition, books, and living expenses is a good idea. For those who just didn’t have the money to attend college, this was a golden opportunity to go to college. The military is definitely a more attractive path with these incentives. I remember this girl who served in the army and shared her thoughts on her experience. She said that it taught her discipline and survival methods. She also had a free ride to college, with her books, housing, and tuition all paid. On top of that, she said that she was still receiving checks because she was a veteran. She basically concluded that she feels like everyone should seize the opportunity of being in the army, and how she is pretty much set for her college life. Not only was it beneficial for the military since people chose to be there, but also it led to an increase of college enrollment in the 1945. “1,013,000 veterans attended college, doubling the existing college population”.
So in 1950 , there were criticism about the poor quality of American schools. Bestor believed that professional educators were responsible for the “anti-intellectual quality of American schools”. They also mentioned in this chapter about how the school was failing to identify and adequately educate talented youth as future scientists and engineers. I feel like they were putting so much emphasis on math and engineering. They put so much importance in finding and developing students who have potential to become scientists and engineers that it almost seem like other fields are less important.
Do you feel like it was unfair to put science and engineering on a pedestal back then, (and even now) or do you think it was logic to do so because these are more of the important fields and jobs in the society/military?
The section about educational television was quite interesting. I feel like Lesser’s point of view was a little too extreme in using t.v to “rescue the entire educational system”. He even went to the extent of arguing that t.v can be somewhat superior to the public school. I do agree that educational t.v and programs are helpful for educating young kids, but t.v lack essential things that cannot be taught like in a public school.
Lesser also said that television is an ideal educator because the child learns without fear of a public or teacher. Also, the child can control the learning process of a switch. I completely disagree with this statement because I feel like a public school teaches a child to get used to be around others and teachers. Learning how to adapt and face these fears and humiliation is also a learning process in my opinion. Kids need to socialize and ask questions from a real human teacher while it is impossible to do so when being taught by an object. I feel like these educational programs can be a nice supplement to public schooling, but I do not feel like t.v can alone fully teach kids.
Do you agree with Lesser’s perspective on how the television is an ideal educator? Do you feel that t.v has helped society to distinguish on what is right and wrong and helped steer them in the right direction (by showing how the good guys always wins, cheaters/murders/thieves always get caught) ? Did you agree with Lessor’s argument on how television can provide models and show what consequences might result from an action? Did t.v shows really affect children behavior and somewhat shape their characters and moral thinking?