betray their otherwise cheery outlook

Question

An education that aims at getting a student a certain kind of job is a technical education, justified for reasons radically different from why education is universally required by law. It is not simply to raise everyone's job prospects that all children are legally required to attend school into their teens. Rather, we have a certain conception of the American citizen, a character who is incomplete if he cannot competently assess how his livelihood and happiness are affected by things outside of himself. But this was not always the case; before it was legally required for all children to attend school until a certain age, it was widely accepted that some were just not equipped by nature to pursue this kind of education. With optimism characteristic of all industrialized countries, we came to accept that everyone is fit to be educated. Computer-education advocates forsake this optimistic notion for a pessimism that betrays their otherwise cheery outlook. Banking on the confusion between educational and vocational reasons for brining computers into schools, computer-ed advocates often emphasize the job prospects of graduates over their educational achievement.

Can you please explain why the author say "Computer-education advocates forsake this optimistic notion for a pessimism that betrays their otherwise cheery outlook." ?

Avangi · Accepted Answer

This is similar to the old "general education" vs "specialized education" argument back in the fifties. Is it better to get a BA or a BS? Gen. Ed. advocates held that in a democracy it's important for the voting population to have a broad knowledge of current world affairs as well as of the history of man's great ideas. To these people it would be an optimistic view of mankind that he would seek to be enlightned.

On the other side of the fence are those who feel the chief objective and focus of education must be to enable the student to earn a living. There's always been a strong movement in this direction. Those who are "enlightened" would consider this a pessimistic view.

Your paragraph points to three different periods in [US] history. In the early days, only the wealthy and upper class children received an education.

Later, the liberal idea took hold that all children should be educated, and laws were passed requiring the states and municipalities to pay for and provide this education (public schools) and all children were required by law to attend. This is part of the "optimistic" view your paragraph talks about.

Your author claims that computer-ed advocates are now moving away from this for reasons that suit their own purposes. This is a biased view and mostly BS. There has always been a strong movement for vocational education. Business and industry have always supported vocational education, because they need employees who have "marketable skills."

His claim is particularly absurd when applied to computer education, since this field attracts and requires the best and brightest. You could make the same argument against the education of medical doctors, since the requirements are so demanding that there's no time for a "liberal/general" education into world affairs and "great thoughts."

He does not say what he means by the "otherwise cheery outlook" of comp-ed advocates. He tries, but fails, to relate it to the "enlightenment" of general education. He implies that all vocational education is directed at those who are not smart enough to study Shakespeare and Socrates, and that this is a pessimistic view of mankind, and a step backward from the earlier notion that all children are entitled to a "liberal" education. IMHO this sheer absurdity - total BS.

Sorry to go on like this.

They forsake this optimistic notion (give up on the idea that all children can be educated) for a pessimism (we must train students to make a living, since some of them are not capable of being [liberally] educated) that betrays their otherwise cheery outlook (he doesn't say what this means - that "computer people" are making a lot of money?? The pessimism goes against the cheery outlook).

It's idiots like this guy that give us liberals a bad name.

Copysnake · Answer

Wonderful ! Thank you very much for your repling and for your introducing me to the US culture.And i'm sure i am more interested in learning English.I really appreciate your help !

betray their otherwise cheery outlook

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions