A Critique of “We Should Cherish Our Children’s Freedom to Think” Keel Ho, In his article, tried to prove that American education Is better than any other even though It doesn’t have high standards In basic skills. He sustained his thesis by saying that “[American] children are able to experiment freely with Ideas”(Ho, 1 996, p. 126), while children in many other countries are demanded to practice mathematics or language skills. However, I don’t agree with his stance; he defined education in other countries as “dedication and obedience” (p. 6), thought that to give children chances to achieve their creativity is the most important quality of education (p. 127), and implied that other countries should follow American education (p. 127). First, I disagree with Ho that education in other countries is defined as “dedication and obedience” (p. 126). He made a gross generalization by using only his own experience in high school days; however, it isn’t applicable to all the countries. For Instance, Korean students actually are not asked only to listen and be obedient to teachers.
They ask questions in the class and even raise objections when they think what the teacher says wrong, or they don’t Like the teaching style. Even If they seem to be under strong control, It’s not because Korean education Is designed to bring out “dedication and obedience” (p. 126) from students but because Koreans particular circumstances cause such a sight. In fact. There are more than forty students in a class; therefore, it’s not easy for students to act as freely as American students who have only about twenty-five students in a class.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
Second, the author insisted that to give children chances to achieve their creativity is the most important quality of education (p. 127). He, however, made a contradiction as he admitted, ” American education does not meet high standards in such basic skills as mathematics and language”(p. 126). Indeed, he overlooked that acquiring common knowledge Is also important because the word, “common” itself means that It Is basically demanded for normal people to get. Furthermore, he didn’t consider that people couldn’t obtain advanced Innovation when performing the creatively thou basic knowledge.
For example, a computer programmer has to know at least basic skills and technical terms so as to devise some items although he has an original idea. As a matter of fact, big American corporations hired a considerate numbers of Asian experts who have different educational background. For instance, recently, people were startled at the fact that Son Jung-I, a Korean businessman, became a CEO of Microsoft Company. He could be selected for the high position because he had not only creativity that Americans also have but also high repressions knowledge.
Third, Ho gave readers an Intense Implication that education In other countries should be Like American education (p. 1 27). In other words, he meant that other countries couldn’t help following American way since children can learn under a creative system only in America. However, American education might not be the best creativity which is learnt in the States might not be valuable in other countries. For example, people who live in Korea are required to acquire different kind of learning because Koreans have different working styles from Americans.
Specifically, cooperation and following procedures come prior to freedom and displaying the creativity in Korean working places. All in all, his evidence was not fair and representative; therefore, he failed to convince readers that American education is the best. Conversely, why are Americans, who have the greatest education in the world, supplied with a lot of technicians from other countries? After all, it means that American education has significant flaws, and Americans might be able to find some needs for revisions in their education system.