DePaul is the fourth higher-learning institution I’ve attended–it’s been quite a ride and a different experience at each. While reading Dyson’s essay, I reflected on the idea that one thing has been on the agenda throughout my schooling experience: become a global citizen.
This buzz phrase has been uttered with reverence during introduction week, sprinkled throughout syllabi, and held over heads through the entirety of the course length. We all know what it means to be a global citizen: you’re a sharpshooting, critical-thinking, solid-argument-toting, open-minded, well-spoken sonofagun. You’re John Wayne on an international scale.
Dyson makes an attempt to explain why schooled literacy exists as it does, but it makes you wonder what is lost in the name of attaining global citizenship.
I can think of so many instances where time to further explore topics of interest wasn’t made for students. Questions arose but weren’t validated or fleshed out. Even here at DePaul, I’m pushed to take LSP core classes where, contrary to the course title, I can’t quantify the reasoning for the requirement. My personal interests are secondary, even vilified at times as being too narrow. The school’s stated purpose is to send me into the world as a more fulfilled, rounded human being.
For sound pedagogy of the class at primary levels, it makes sense that teachers would have to maintain some control or restrictions over what is being learned to keep the group focused. Fostering open minds is crucial.
In higher learning, though, it’s like…why am I paying to be steered away from the things I’ve identified as important in my life? You’re getting my money either way.
