My English 100 teacher gave us an assignment to write an essay using this prompt from "Examsmanship and the Liberal Arts" by William G. Perry Jr.
Here is the prompt: Assume that you have been asked, as a student representative, to write a paper for the faculty senate of your college or university in response to the following claim, made by William G. Perry:
If a liberal education should teach students "how to think," not only in fields outside their own-that is , to understand "how the other fellow orders knowledge," then bulling, even in its purest form, expresses an important part of what a pluralist university holds dear. . . (32)
I'm having trouble understanding the prompt and thus having trouble writing my essay. My essay is due Sept. 8th, 2009, if anyone could help me with understanding this before then, I would be extremely thankful.
I note that this essay is available online: people.fas.harvard.edu/~lipoff/miscellaneous/exams.html.
I would strongly encourage all who come to this thread to read it, if they have not already done so, even if they have no intention of commenting on it here.
Beyond that, why do you not at least make an attempt at understanding the prompt on your own. Break it down into its component phrases and words, define key terms, and see if you can translate it into less academic English. Then post your results here, and we'll let you know how you have done.
"Bulling?" If this is a term used in a special way in the essay, oughtn't it be in quotes in the prompt? Since it is not in quotes, it must mean "pushing one's way by force," which is the only possible definition of the term used as a verb in this manner. How the use of force is in any way consistent with the goals of a liberal education, I cannot imagine.
It isn't in quotes in the text, so I don't see why quotation marks would have been added to the quotation, though the term is indeed being used in a very specific sense that is not one of the word's usual meanings.
My Dad and I talked about it and we kind of got the feeling that bull is like knowing a whole lot of the how and why without putting your finger on what it really is, and cow is just knowing the plain, basic facts, dry like a soda cracker. My thinking on it is still kind of fuzzy.
You're on the right track:
Bull -- understanding frames of reference, ideological expectations, methods of questioning data
Cow -- having memorized data
Bull is clearly more valuable than cow, especially in a world where data itself can simply be looked up whenever it is needed. To be able to write the former, you need to be able to think critically and to show awareness of the prevailing paradigms. Cow only requires you to have turned yourself into a biochemical tape recorder, able to repeat back class notes or textbooks verbatim. Of course, bull has its dark side to, not much addressed in the essay. So, in the example given in the essay, the science student can ace the sociology essay because he is smart enough to guess, from the book titles, what the general topics of the books are about. He knows the general biases that govern the field and that tend to slant the teachings of sociology professors. He can therefore guess both what the books likely said about their topics, and what the professors want to see in the essay discussion. The data upon which the books rested isn't really all that important -- it was likely cherry picked and massaged to support the "right" conclusion anyway, as that's what happens when a field is dominated by biased ideologues. Indeed, many professors, especially in the humanities, share the relativistic view of the author of the essay, in which facts aren't facts, but merely things to be interrogated and twisted until you get the result you believe in. Of course, this is generally only held to be true when you don't like the facts. When the facts support your position, then they are inviolable and those who hold contrary views are ignoramuses.
The above should give you an idea of how someone might go about responding to the claim you have to respond to. Of course, your own response might be very different . . .
Wow! I love that essay. I have to admit that it is just a little over my head; I get the nuances, but I know there is something that I am still missing. I strive to be the marriage between the bull and the cow. Sometimes I am the cow. Sometimes I am the bull. Rarely do I mix the two.
Sean explained the concept pretty well. This assignment seems to lead into what the prof is wanting from the students this semester--gone are the days of "book reports." It is time to analyze the class material, make connections, and draw conclusions. Combine the facts--the cow--(characters, quotes, page numbers, bibliography) with the analysis--the bull--(symbolism, conflict, motive, themes, comparisons, suppositions).
Yes, given that this is an assignment for a professor, you might want your response to be a tad less cynical and a bit more about the importance of combining both to attain true understanding of the subject matter. For that matter, you can be cynical and yet still hold this to be true.
what I'm getting from this quote is the question: how does college help to broaden a student's view of life and to help him think critically? Don't know if I'm getting the prompt right.
