Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is a complex novel that relates the events surrounding the relations, lives, and loves of a middle-upper class English family in the late nineteenth century.
In Pride and Predjuice life is not all fun and games. There are many pressures in life: mothers with high expectations for a good marriage and a girl's own expectation of what life and hopefully marriage will be like.
The first sentence in this book is impressive. It reads: “It is a truth well known to all the world that an unmarried man in possession of a large fortune must be in need of a wife”. The undertone is very clear: the foundation of the marriage at that time is not emotion but possession.
The characters have their own personalities. Mrs. Bennet is a woman who makes great efforts to marry off her daughters. Mr. Bingley is a friendly young man, but his friend, Mr. Darcy, is a very proud man who seems to always feel superior. Even the five daughters in Bennet family are very different. Jane is simple, innocent and never speaks evil of others. Elizabeth is a clever girl who always has her own opinion. Mary likes reading classic books. (Actually she is a pedant.) Kitty doesn’t have her own opinion but likes to follow her sister, Lydia. Lydia is a girl who follows exotic things, handsome man, and is somehow a little profligate. When I read the book, I can always find the same personalities in the society now. That is why I think this book is indeed the representative of the society in Britain in the 18th century.
Compared to the past, although the marriages of economic needs have decreased rapidly, the concept of “money determines everything” is still rooted in some people’s mind. A lot of parents try hard to interfere their children’s marriages. Education background, possessions, jobs remains the main reason that may influence one’s marriage. Marry for money is still a big problem in our society. We can’t help thinking: can money determine everything?
After reading the book, I think I have understood more about the word ‘prejudice’. Even though I considered prejudice to be a very bad thing, I'm a prejudiced person myself. I didn’t have a good impression on the movie so I didn’t read the book until now. I only like to do the things I like. Every time I meet somebody or something, my thoughts about it depend merely on my past experience and my mood of the time. I'm a person thinking by heart not by brain. What is worse, I didn’t consider that as a bad thing. I thought everyone was like that. Everyone has his special way to observe the world. So it's individuality, not prejudice. But something is wrong here. Though everyone can judge in whatever way he likes, he can't ignore others. You can like what you like and hate what you hate, but you should be objective when you meet the external world. I think we should consider things in a well-rounded way, not just whatever we want but also that is acceptable by others.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Core curriculum
As college students and classes diversify, it has become more and more difficult to set up a core curriculum that balances between freedom of choices and the indispensable common knowledge foundation colleges ought to provide. Many have reached the consensus that we should have a core curriculum but debated on the issue of what a core curriculum should be. In particular, Harry R. Lewis argues that accomplishing the core curriculum in college should allow one to become responsible citizens who do not only act for self-interest but also contribute to the society.
If we take his arguments, a core curriculum should be focused on U.S history, U.S politics, democracy principles, current domestic and world issues, U.S government system and related subjects. We cannot deny that these courses are beneficial for one to become a well-educated citizen. But he does not explicitly say to what extent we should study these subjects and how much space would be left for free choices. The more time students spent on learning these, the less likely they are to go in depth of fields they are interested in. In fact, how many students would actually want to study the courses under this core curriculum and really put efforts in them? At least, I could argue that for those who don’t enjoy politics, a core curriculum like this wouldn’t give the optimum outcome.
Lewis is expecting people to become responsible citizens after college. He implies that responsible citizens should not only be those who do not go against the law but also who actually do something good for the society. There’s nothing wrong to be a responsible citizen. But how much would the study in college core curriculum be taken into account of what really shapes one’s personal values? To say the very least, four years of college is only a small proportion of time out of one’s life. Beside the knowledge taught in college, people’s background, cultures, families and friends, difficulties they encounter are all important factors that vary how they think and act. Therefore, a core curriculum should to a limited extent but does not necessarily transform one’s personal values.
On the other hand, if we agree that Lewis’ interpretation of core curriculum could make people responsible citizens, why can’t we also argue that other types of core curriculum would achieve the same result? For example, a liberal art core would fit just as well. By studying a wide range of selective courses, students would be able to look at things from different prospective that also help them to hold positive values and become responsible citizens.
I think what Lewis discontent is that many people go to college only for the purpose of getting good jobs. He regards this as act for self-interest. But acting for self-interest and being responsible citizens do not contradict with each other. In fact, a person who works hard and succeeds in his own career is most likely to bring benefit to the society.
In my opinion, a core curriculum should be as it is now – based on students’ major but also requires a certain amount of liberal art courses to expand their knowledge. Students who choose to come to college deserve to pursue the study of their own interest. Even though every course has its own value, taking well-rounded courses with no depth can result in learning nothing. So even in a liberal art core curriculum, the courses should be selective. In reality, because of increasing demand for specialization in the job market that requires the depth in the student's major field of study, a core curriculum in college nowadays should mandate a far smaller proportion of a student's course work than in the past so that students can be focused on their own majors.
Idealistically, every kind of core curriculum has the reason to be best for college education. However standing on a student’s point of view, what is practical is far more important than what’s theoretically true. Yes, we come to college to learn knowledge, to be well-education or maybe contribute to the society. But we are also here to fulfill our own goals and prepare ourselves for our future lives. Don’t we have the right to spend more time on what we are interested in and what we can do well than to study reluctantly what we don’t like?
If we take his arguments, a core curriculum should be focused on U.S history, U.S politics, democracy principles, current domestic and world issues, U.S government system and related subjects. We cannot deny that these courses are beneficial for one to become a well-educated citizen. But he does not explicitly say to what extent we should study these subjects and how much space would be left for free choices. The more time students spent on learning these, the less likely they are to go in depth of fields they are interested in. In fact, how many students would actually want to study the courses under this core curriculum and really put efforts in them? At least, I could argue that for those who don’t enjoy politics, a core curriculum like this wouldn’t give the optimum outcome.
Lewis is expecting people to become responsible citizens after college. He implies that responsible citizens should not only be those who do not go against the law but also who actually do something good for the society. There’s nothing wrong to be a responsible citizen. But how much would the study in college core curriculum be taken into account of what really shapes one’s personal values? To say the very least, four years of college is only a small proportion of time out of one’s life. Beside the knowledge taught in college, people’s background, cultures, families and friends, difficulties they encounter are all important factors that vary how they think and act. Therefore, a core curriculum should to a limited extent but does not necessarily transform one’s personal values.
On the other hand, if we agree that Lewis’ interpretation of core curriculum could make people responsible citizens, why can’t we also argue that other types of core curriculum would achieve the same result? For example, a liberal art core would fit just as well. By studying a wide range of selective courses, students would be able to look at things from different prospective that also help them to hold positive values and become responsible citizens.
I think what Lewis discontent is that many people go to college only for the purpose of getting good jobs. He regards this as act for self-interest. But acting for self-interest and being responsible citizens do not contradict with each other. In fact, a person who works hard and succeeds in his own career is most likely to bring benefit to the society.
In my opinion, a core curriculum should be as it is now – based on students’ major but also requires a certain amount of liberal art courses to expand their knowledge. Students who choose to come to college deserve to pursue the study of their own interest. Even though every course has its own value, taking well-rounded courses with no depth can result in learning nothing. So even in a liberal art core curriculum, the courses should be selective. In reality, because of increasing demand for specialization in the job market that requires the depth in the student's major field of study, a core curriculum in college nowadays should mandate a far smaller proportion of a student's course work than in the past so that students can be focused on their own majors.
Idealistically, every kind of core curriculum has the reason to be best for college education. However standing on a student’s point of view, what is practical is far more important than what’s theoretically true. Yes, we come to college to learn knowledge, to be well-education or maybe contribute to the society. But we are also here to fulfill our own goals and prepare ourselves for our future lives. Don’t we have the right to spend more time on what we are interested in and what we can do well than to study reluctantly what we don’t like?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)