outliers 34-47

Bill Joy

starts by creating atmosphere

"no-date nerd"

rewrote UNIX, which is the code that lets you access the internet

Java, too

Edison of the internet

one of the most influential people in the modern history of computing

"it was a world where the best men won, and Joy was clearly one of those best men"

what is the question of this section?

"Is it possible the same pattern of special opportunities operate in the real world as well?

"Is there such a thing as innate talent?"

yes

how do we know?

not every hockey player born in January plays at such a high level

achievement is talent plus preparation

violin example

by the age of twenty, the elite performers had each totaled ten thousand hrs of practice

no naturals: musicians who floated effortlessley to the top of practicing a fraction of the time that their peers did

no "grinds": people who worked harder than everyone else, yet just didnt have what it takes to be in the top ranks

the thing that distinguishes one performer from another is how hard he or she works

even mozart! didnt hit his stride until he'd had enough practice under his belt

impossible to reach the number all by yourself. you need supportive parents, cant be pooor

need to be in a special program


3.

What advantages did Bill Joy have?

punch cards
one of the first universities to switch to time-sharing

found himself in one of the few places where a 17 yr old could program all he wanted

24 hour computer lab

bug in the software that let you stay there forever

before he could become an expert, someone had to give him the oppty to learn how to be an expert

malcolm gladwell clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz4hPbHIZ6Y

p. 24-34 outliers

advantages lead to more advantages (rep squad)

arbitrary cut-off dates

quotes from economists

hockey players get a big head start

didn't start out an outlier, just started out a little bit better

where  else does the hockey example play a role?

schools

consequences? p 32

we overlook how large a role society plays

p. 33: we dont rewrite the rules

 traditional ingredients of success?

passion, talent, hard work

Sucess is random and arbitrary!

What is the good and bad news about that?

Outliers, Chapter 1.

Hockey Example!

Who likes hockey?

creates atmosphere, tells a story

a meritocracy?

cant buy your way in

challenging notion of individual merit,

"players judged on the basis of their ability, not some arbitrary fact"

Outlier?

What is his argument?

there is something profoundly wrong w the way we make sense of success

we are obsessed with celebrity

people dont just rise from nothing, the circumstances of their birth make a difference

phenomenon of relative age

challenge our notion that the best and brightest rise to the top

“Blue-Collar Brilliance” [p. 243]
Mike Rose
In this essay, Mike Rose profiles his mother Rosie and his uncle Joe, who serve as examples of his argument that those without formal education have important kinds of intelligence. He points out that although we assume less time in school means that a person is less intelligent, those who work in manual labor use critical thinking, math, reading, and writing skills. These workers also acquire a social intelligence for working with others to solve problems, and their “education” happens as they learn daily on the job. Rose argues that we should be aware of the many kinds of intelligence necessary to be a skilled worker and to make sure we don’t offer “limited educational opportunities” (¶28) to them.
Teaching Notes
This essay does not mention higher education in much depth, despite the fact that Rose teaches at a large public university. Ask students how this essay relates to some of the others in the chapter, or to extend Rose’s argument: what would he say about the relevance of college to the blue-collar workers he describes?
Ask students to find examples of Rose’s appeal to readers’ emotions (especially in the descriptions of his mother and uncle); how do they react to the use of pathos?
Related Essays
ANDREW HACKER AND CLAUDIA DREIFUS “Are Colleges Worth the Price of Admission?” [p. 179]
SANFORD J. UNGAR “The New Liberal Arts” [p. 190]
DAVID FOSTER WALLACE “Kenyon Commencement Speech” [p. 198] LIZ ADDISON “Two Years Are Better Than Four” [p. 211]
CHARLES MURRAY “Are Too Many People Going to College?” [p. 222] GERALD GRAFF “Hidden Intellectualism” [p.380]
Joining the Conversation
1. This essay begins with a fairly detailed description of Mike Rose’s mother at her work as a waitress in the 1950s, when he was a child. How is this description related to his argument? Is it an effective opening? Why or why not?

41

The description of Rosie, the waitress, is the first example, an extended example, of a blue-collar worker requiring specific kinds of intelligence to do her job well. It is a very detailed example of the argument Rose later makes that blue-collar workers employ intelligence on the job. Students may think it’s effective because it is a story rich in detail that draws them in, but some may argue against the pathos of introducing his hardworking mother in order to connect to readers emotionally.
2. How would you summarize Rose’s overall argument? What evidence does he offer as support? How convincing is his argument?
Rose argues that intelligence should not be associated solely with formal education, as he says in paragraph 9. Instead we should challenge our understanding of the relationship between mind and body and acknowledge the ways in which blue-collar workers use various kinds of intelligence on the job. He supports this argument with numerous examples of blue-collar jobs that require thinking, reading, and interpreting, and he also notes in paragraph 15 that he has studied “the cognitive demands of a range of blue-collar and service jobs,” establishing himself as an expert on the topic. Students’ opinions of the argument will vary.
3. Where does Rose mention differing views, and what is his reason for bringing them up? What are these other views, and who holds them?
Rose mentions opposing views in paragraph 9 when he details “assumptions” about the lower intelligence levels of blue-collar workers. He points out how Revolutionary–era thinkers saw mechanics as “illiterate and therefore incapable of participating in government” and says that he has overheard management call workers “dummies.” In paragraph 27, he acknowledges that some of the uses of writing that occur in blue- collar work “are abbreviated, routine, and repetitive, and they infrequently require interpretation or analysis.” In each case, the opposing views help establish his own argument. The entire essay is predicated on the “they say” argument that blue-collar workers are not intelligent, and he points out the ways in which readers may assume that he is giving too much credit to the reading and writing tasks of blue-collar jobs. He rarely assigns these points of view to particular groups of people, though, implying that they are pervasive in our culture. He does, however, single out managers in paragraph 9. Ask students who might be most likely to denigrate the intellectual levels of those who do physical work or to think that a college education equals intelligence.
4. How do you think Rose would respond to Charles Murray’s argument (pp. 222–42) that many students lack the intellectual potential to succeed in college?

42

The two authors would likely agree that different kinds of intelligence are valuable, since Murray spent some time analyzing possible futures for a student who would succeed as an electrician. Indeed both authors value blue-collar work. Rose would likely challenge Murray’s definition of intellectual potential, though, as he might argue that Murray fails to consider some skills students may have; as he says in paragraph 28: “when we devalue the full range of everyday cognition, we offer limited educational opportunities and fail to make fresh and meaningful instructional connections among disparate kinds of skill and knowledge.” Rose might say that despite Murray’s concerns about class conflict in our society, he may be reinforcing “social separations” by assuming such students will not succeed.

The New Liberal Arts

“The New Liberal Arts” [p. 290] Sanford J. Ungar
In “The New Liberal Arts,” Sanford J. Ungar, president of Goucher College, argues that a liberal arts education is still relevant in today’s economy. He identifies and rebuts seven misperceptions about a liberal arts degree, noting that employers are not looking for vocationally trained graduates but rather individuals who can think critically and communicate effectively. He argues that low-income and first-generation college students especially should thrive in a liberal arts setting. Ungar also says that a liberal arts education does not make U.S. graduates less competitive in a global economy. Despite the high costs of college, he says, “the net cost of attending a small liberal-arts college can be lower than that of a large public university” (¶19). He advocates for such small, residential colleges and encourages “close interaction between faculty members and students” (¶18).


Joining the Conversation
1. Summarize in a few sentences the seven misperceptions that Sanford Ungar discusses. These of course are all things that “they say”— and that he uses to launch what he wants to say. How does calling them “misperceptions” affect the way you read his argument? Would you read it any differently if he instead called them “common assumptions”?

27

A sample summary: “A liberal arts education is too expensive in a troubling economy, and students—especially low-income and first-generation students—should focus on majors that will get them jobs. Emphasis on the liberal arts in higher education puts the United States at a disadvantage internationally and reflects a liberal political agenda.” Calling the points he responds to “misperceptions” explicitly marks them as positions that he disagrees with. Students may say that the phrase “common assumptions” might confuse some readers who would conclude that Ungar supports those points. On a semantic level, an assumption is something taken for granted, while a misperception is something that has been observed from a flawed perspective.

2. See paragraph 6 where Geoffrey Garin suggests that “the responsibility of higher education today is to prepare people ‘for jobs that do not yet exist.’” Thus, according to Ungar, “It may be that studying the liberal arts is actually the best form of career education.” How would you respond to this claim?
Students’ responses to this question will vary, but you may want to spend some time making sure they understand both Garin’s assertion and Ungar’s argument. Some students will agree that the critical thinking and reasoning skills fostered in a liberal arts education prepare graduates for a variety of future careers, including those positions not yet created. Others will point to growing fields such as healthcare and energy technology that require practical and scientific backgrounds. Many students may have examples of people they know who struggled to get a job after graduating from a liberal arts program or who are working in a field unrelated to their degree.

3. Misperception number 5 relates liberal education to political affiliation. What does Ungar have to say on this issue, and what do you think about his response?
Some students may resist what they see as indoctrination to a liberal political agenda in the term liberal arts. They may be unable to separate the terms liberal and conservative from their political connotations, and so it would be a good idea to look up dictionary definitions of those two terms as a class. Ungar explains that “a liberal education, as properly defined above, has nothing whatsoever to do with politics” (¶14). He points out that its continuation of classical traditions is actually a more conservative approach, and a discussion that highlights the terminology at work would benefit students.

4. On what specific points do you think Ungar would agree with Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus (pp. 178–88)? On what points would he be likely to disagree?

28

Ungar would likely agree with Hacker and Dreifus that a college education should be available to everyone. He argues that we should “train the broadest possible cross section of American society to participate in, and help shape, civil discourse” (¶ 11). Both articles agree that the liberal arts education is valuable; in fact, Hacker / Dreifus argue that “supposedly impractical studies are a wiser use of college and ultimately a better investment” (¶ 6). Both Ungar and Hacker and Dreifus value a lower student- to-faculty ratio.
The authors would disagree about the relevance of cost. Hacker and Dreifus make tuition charges their first point, whereas Ungar finds complaints about tuition and cost unfair or at best misplaced. His “Misconception No. 7, that colleges are becoming “irrelevant because they are unable to register gains in productivity or to find innovative ways of doing things” (¶17), could well describe Hacker and Dreifus’s position. Hacker and Dreifus praise many schools for the gains they have documented and for their innovation in handling costs, while Ungar argues that “the problem of costs goes beyond individual institutions” (¶17) and that the government should more fully support education. 

judith warner

cookies, eating junk food is patriotic

you need to present healthy eating as a new, desirable, freely chosen expression of the american way

spread message of eat differently by fighting on the nutritional and psychological front

shift of attitudes

what have we shifted attitudes toward?

change in cultural attitudes that led americans to quit smoking



“Junking Junk Food” [p. 400]
Judith Warner
In “Junking Junk Food,” Judith Warner examines arguments against government
intervention in Americans’ eating habits and concludes that those habits won’t change
without a significant cultural shift in attitudes about food. She describes how Sarah
Palin and Glenn Beck have resisted anti-sugar campaigns and other efforts to change
children’s access to unhealthy foods, and she suggests that Michelle Obama’s campaign
on behalf of healthy eating will struggle because it tackles an integral part of the
American way of life. Warner notes that World War II–era nutritional campaigns
succeeded because they also employed psychological approaches, and she quotes
former FDA commissioner David Kessler, who argues that the decline in smoking
happened because of cultural changes. Without similar changes in Americans’
approach to food, Warner argues, little will change.
Teaching Notes
Ask students to consider how a cultural shift in attitudes about food might take place.
What factors would lead to such a change? How likely is it that such a shift will take
place?
R

Joining the Conversation
1. Citing such influential figures as Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck,
Judith Warner suggests that changing people’s eating habits could prove far more
difficult than many imagine. Why does she think this change will be so challenging?
Warner argues in paragraph 5 that “in waging war on fat and sugar, what the
administration is doing is taking on central aspects of the American lifestyle.” She
considers eating to be culturally constructed behavior and argues that cultural change,
not government policy or advice, is necessary to alter Americans’ eating habits.
76

2. How are historical changes in public attitudes toward cigarette smoking, discussed
in paragraph 8 of the essay, related to Warner’s argument about Americans’ eating
habits?

Warner points out that “it was a shift in cultural attitudes, not laws or regulations, that
led Americans to quit smoking.” She quotes David Kessler, who notes that cigarettes
shifted from being “sexy and cool” to “a terribly disgusting, addictive product” (¶8).
Warner argues that this sort of cultural shift is necessary for changing Americans’
eating habits.

3. How might Warner respond to the main points of Michelle Obama’s campaign to
promote healthy eating (pp. 417–33)?

At the end of her essay in paragraph 9, Warner notes that Michelle Obama “has her
work cut out for her” if she hopes to change Americans’ attitudes about food.
Obama’s plan focuses on four components: providing information about healthy
eating to parents and families, having healthier food in schools, getting kids moving,
and ensuring that all communities have access to healthy food stores. Much of her
plan involves government policy, which Warner would note is not necessarily an
effective solution. Certain elements of the first part of her plan might work towards
changing attitudes about food, but Warner might argue that a propaganda campaign
showing “healthy eating as a new, desirable, freely chosen expression of the American
way” (¶5) is the only effort that would change attitudes.

4. Does Warner include any naysayers, possible objections to her own argument? If
not, do it for her. Insert a brief paragraph stating an objection to her argument and
then responding to the objection as she might. (See Chapter 6 for examples and
templates that will help.)

In paragraph 4, Warner notes that “teaching Americans, and children in particular,
healthier eating habits seemed so commonsensical a venture, so wholesome and safe,
that Michelle Obama chose it for her apolitical personal project as first lady.” Here
Warner includes the opposite point of view: that changing Americans’ eating habits is
possible through campaigns such as Obama’s. However, Warner does not have many
other naysayer arguments, so students might consider how changes in eating habits
might happen without a cultural shift or how attitudes towards food are already
changing.
77