Tyler Case

I read David Orr's paper called "What is Education For?" and found it to be a little bit unnerving. I found myself disagreeing with Orr more than agreeing certainly. His basic argument is that the modern education system is failing not only its students but the world by failing to educate them in the world around them, their own environment. While I can definitely see his point, when looking back on my own education I do not see this as a prevalent issue.

Beginning in primary school and really right up until high school I remember my education being adequate. I do not really have a lot to compare it to, besides the experiences of my friends both in the same school and other, and with that it seemed normal. Each grade was a stepping stone to the next and in that way made sense. I do remember learning about the environment in class, and do not feel it was overlooked.

Leaving high school and going to university the stepping stones seems to be finished and I was left to find my own way, and choose my own classes. With those choices I think you can choose to learn about the environment and the world around you. The main thing that I noticed with our modern day education system isn't the lack of worldly knowledge it imparts but how it leaves you unprepared for the next step. You get the knowledge you require for a degree, but that degree does no longer guarantee the chance for a career. I believe that this should be the focus of the university, in the vein of a college. That is what is going to be most important for students in the future. The environmental classes are always available, even at a small school like ours, but many are scared of them because they do not lend themselves to future employment.

I understand the need for environmental knowledge, but my problem with Orr is that it is available and while it may aid the world in the future it will not provide dividends for graduating students which is the true limitation of the university education system.