Kie Ho’s article “We should Cherish Our Children’s Freedom to Think” reminded me in many ways of our previous reading “Teach Knowledge, Not ‘Mental Skills.’” Both texts appeared in newspapers and address the issue of education in the US, albeit from opposite points of view. Their common denominator is that they both acknowledge deficits in the US education system in contrast to systems elsewhere in the world, as for instance in Europe and Asia. However, while their argumentations are similarly structured using concessions and counterarguments, they hold two strongly opposing views as how to respond to the issue.
Whereas Hirsch advocates an education reform that focuses on teaching core-knowledge rather than mental skills, Ho responds to such critical voices by putting their concerns into perspective. Challenging an allegedly harmful status quo of US education, he couches his main argument against it in a question: “If American education is so tragically inferior, why is it that this is still the country of innovation?” In my opinion, this question is rhetorically very well-positioned and also cleverly phrased. It exposes the reader to an idea they will most likely not be able to defy, not only due to it being a fact, but much more because it speaks to them on an affective level: the US is certainly still a country of innovation, and this is something that one can only be proud of as an American.
Ho employs the question as part of a very effective strategy to establish a kind of premise on which he can build his persuasive argument. His counterargument is that US education not only guarantees but also encourages and supports the freedom of self-expression for all its students already at an early age. Similar to the wording of the above-mentioned question, Ho amplifies his argument by emphasizing the notion of ‘freedom’ as the “most important measurement … in the studies of the quality of education” – again, just like the notion of ‘innovation,’ it is something abstract that affects particularly the American reader who can identify with such concepts, as they essentially represent their very Americanness.
Whereas Hirsch advocates an education reform that focuses on teaching core-knowledge rather than mental skills, Ho responds to such critical voices by putting their concerns into perspective. Challenging an allegedly harmful status quo of US education, he couches his main argument against it in a question: “If American education is so tragically inferior, why is it that this is still the country of innovation?” In my opinion, this question is rhetorically very well-positioned and also cleverly phrased. It exposes the reader to an idea they will most likely not be able to defy, not only due to it being a fact, but much more because it speaks to them on an affective level: the US is certainly still a country of innovation, and this is something that one can only be proud of as an American.
Ho employs the question as part of a very effective strategy to establish a kind of premise on which he can build his persuasive argument. His counterargument is that US education not only guarantees but also encourages and supports the freedom of self-expression for all its students already at an early age. Similar to the wording of the above-mentioned question, Ho amplifies his argument by emphasizing the notion of ‘freedom’ as the “most important measurement … in the studies of the quality of education” – again, just like the notion of ‘innovation,’ it is something abstract that affects particularly the American reader who can identify with such concepts, as they essentially represent their very Americanness.
Iman,
AntwortenLöschenI like your comparative rhetorical analysis of Ho and Hirsch. I also found Ho’s use of rhetorical question to be highly effective. What is your opinion about the importance of freedom in education? Do you agree with Ho? And what would you identify as being the core concept of education in Germany? Is it freedom as well? or something else?
Also, take another look at these phrases: “by putting their concerns into perspective” and “It exposes the reader to an idea they will most likely not be able to defy”. Can you identify the pronoun agreement issue in each?