Blog #6 - Seeing #2

Rev, John P. Minogue uses many metaphors in his essay The Twentieth-Century University Is Obsolete to describe the state of education in liberal arts institutions. Through them, Minogue is able to argue how universities are more like corporations rather than learning institutions.

In the third paragraph, Minogue describes higher education as a "global commodity" and how similar it is to the movie industry. Much like when a company makes a movie and distributes it, universities teach their students and send them out into the world with what knowledge they have. When the students are from other countries, they bring what they were taught back to their home countries. This makes education seem like a factor in the marketing progress in globalization and adds to Minogue's belief that education is more of a commodity rather than actual learning institutions.

Minogue also compares university faculty and staff to factory workers by calling them "knowledge engineers" in the sixth paragraph. By teaching certain courses and having them arranged on various time slots, universities are able to efficiently, yet not effectively, teach many students at once. This also allows the "working professionals" to "wrap courses into a degree to be distributed in cookie-cutter institutions" for students based on their majors or intended career paths. Much like a mass assembling-line in a factory, university faculty and staff are able to churn-out numerous students in order to reach the needed graduation percentage.

Blog #5 - Seeing #2

In her essay This Land Is Their Land, Barbara Ehrenreich uses a variety of methods in her argument. Through the uses of satire, sarcasm, irony, and ridicule, she is able to support her argument and its serious nature.

One instance of sarcasm that Ehrenreich uses criticizes the rich's preference for scenery, even if it's for a few weeks out of the year. She writes that if the rich don't get views of "vast expanses of water" or "mountains piercing the sky" outside their homes or hotels, then they may have negative health repercussions. This paints scenic luxury as if it were a physical need for the wealthy, thus supporting Ehrenreich's view of them as "[hogging] all the good scenery."

Another use of ridicule in her essay is Ehrenreich's comparison of workers' daily commute and a vacationer stuck in traffic. This would be a nightmare to the vacationing upper class, but this is nothing for workers who travel several hours a day just to clean dishes and trim hedges. So because they are unaccustomed to this sort of travel, one should "shed a tear" for the vacationer when in reality, the tear should be shed for the workers. This paints the wealthy as impatient as well as self-important, for they too good for this type of inconvenience.

In the last paragraph of the essay, Ehrenreich uses both satire and irony to summarize her argument and make it seem as if America is made more for the wealthy instead of "you and me." As real estate and land are bought-up by them, Ehrenreich insists that the rich are claiming what should be everyone's "birthright" for themselves. This becomes apparent through her take on the line in "This Land Is Your Land" and how it probably wasn't meant to be sung by "hedge-fund operators." Instead, it would have been more fitting if the line were sung by a chorus of polo-wearing members of a country club with gulf clubs in their hands. Thus, it is this paragraph that gives the essay its title.

Family Guy - Morning Wood Academy