Katie Gross

March 18, 2014

CAS 138T
Higher Education Deliberation
Among the three options of this civic issue of higher education, our groups deliberation varied
in overall strength. The weakest of our deliberations arguably came from option two, as most of the
group agreed that we disagreed with this option, and it made for some weak points, simple time-fillers,
or too many personal stories that distracted us from the criteria that makes up a strong deliberation. The
strongest of our deliberation, according to the nine criteria described in Rhetoric & Civic Life, came
from option one.
As we discussed, there were many issues with option two, the main problem being that its
impractical to expect people to be able, let alone willing, to teach or impose morals or ethics onto
another person. We agreed that it seems unethical to eliminate diversity that comes from differences in
each individuals moral and ethical beliefs. We had difficulty identifying a broad range of solutions or
even disagreeing on much at all because the majority of us believed that this was an unfitting option for
this civic issue. From my perspective, the group may have been experiencing issues with ensuring
mutual comprehension by really clarifying what this option was actually proposing. Our discussion
furthered only by putting aside this unproductive unanimity and talking more about the diversity factor.
The focus on diversity stemmed from a claim from option two that learning to work with people
of different backgrounds is essential today. While this may be true, the entirety of the proposal appears
to lead back to the idea that the loss of a universal moral and ethical code is the priority in addressing
this civic issue. Rather than trying to adjust moral and ethical standards of each individual in order to
regain a sense of unity, its important to teach acceptance of diversity and to try to eliminate the
discomfort and distrust that people feel when they encounter someone who is not like them. America has
been called the melting pot but the actual melting, is what our nation struggles with. A key aspect to
developing countries is freedom, and with this freedom will naturally come a branching of values,
culture, ethics, morals and overall way of life. The discomfort is unnecessary as long as the individual is
truly confident in their beliefs, and welcoming of diversity that may challenge or alter those beliefs.
Concerning politics, and our citizens lack of trust for its leaders, the issue comes from stubbornness and
unwillingness to accept other sides or to value diversity. There is an unspoken norm that its a sign of
weakness to change an opinion or to grow in a belief that has been challenged. This norm causes
inflexibility in civilians, and a reluctance to accept or even fully consider another opinion. Classes that
require students to deliberate rather than debate or argue help to develop this comfort with diversity and
consequently a confidence our own opinions too. Its not about trying to change moral or ethical values
in order to make people fit better together, its about instilling a sense of comfort with diversity and the
hope is that with this comfort, a sense of trust will develop as well.
Option one inspired the groups strongest deliberation as we managed to adequately meet most
of the criteria of a strong deliberation and by effect the most progress was made. An efficient amount of
personal and emotional experiences were shared and it inspired a reflection of individual values and an
understanding of the advantages of others opinions too. We included a wide range of ways to address
option one and I know that I personally expanded on my beliefs and was introduced to a number of
points I hadnt previously considered. I felt comfortable with the diverse backgrounds and the
atmosphere wasnt tense or intimidating. All members had the most to say about this option, because it
fostered the most promise for our country, but challenged individuality. This inspired many possible
solutions or treatments that surfaced in our deliberation.
The general consensus was that while STEM majors are important, liberal arts are vital as well.
The goal was to get children interested in STEM majors at a lower level of education and sustain this
interest. A lot of the thought-provoking points that were made addressed the underlying problems with
trying to interest kids at a younger level. It was brought up that kids and adolescents are lacking role
models or heroes that are successful in STEM fields, and that at one time children had these sources for
their own inspiration and creating of dreams. The other issue discussed is that STEM fields tend to
require a lot more patience, effort and time to make real significant contributions or advances. For
example, and individual may dream of going to the moon, but there are a lot more prerequisites than for
instance a writer, who has the freedom to write a book as he pleases. For the portion of young people
that still want to pursue a STEM major when they get to college, they are faced with other roadblocks
such as weed-out classes, huge lecture halls, or painfully boring basic classes that discourage them from
carrying their dreams out. Another factor of course is money, which is dealt with further in option three.
Overall option one opened up ideas on areas of improvement in higher education that werent previously
considered and that suggest specific plans to address the issue.
Option three delivered a mix of personal stories and experiences, but the facts and concrete
suggestions were lacking. We agreed that this was the option we felt was most important and should be
addressed first; however, we also seemed to be stuck in exactly how to carry out this option. Money and
financial struggles can be very emotional issues, so its appropriate that a lot of our time was spent
sharing personal experiences. From these personal experiences we acknowledged an unfairness in the
opportunities presented to different kinds of people and we advocated for this to be the major focus in
improving higher education, but we hit a wall in formulating specifics of just how the follow through
would work. Some proposed to establish a system similar to European countries where income taxes are
much higher than in the United States but citizens can get a college education nearly for free. It was
brought up that the U.S. is home to 51 of the top 100 schools in the world, and therefore the equality
may be lacking, but the quality is not. It was argued that if it becomes easier for everyone to get an
education, then the value to a college education might diminish. The other proposal entailed that rather
than government helping financially through taxes, perhaps it would be better to offer more scholarships
that had to be earned through a process that required effort from individual students.
Every High School experience is different for each individual, but the bulk of the problem, the
change, and the possibility come from the choices and actions of the individual at this particular point in
his or her life. Prior to High School its important that children dream, and begin laying the foundations
of a goal-oriented, determined, and ambitious character. During the final years of high school, its
important that this character be established and maintained, and that goals continue to be carried out. In
just a short period of time an adolescent or an extremely young adult is dropped with a bomb of
decisions about their impending future.
Ultimately, we need to devote more money to scholarships, but also more time and dedication to
assisting students in achieving what they need to so that they have the chance at a higher education and
subsequently success. High Schools should begin educating students about financial plans and career
goals as early as freshman year and students should be encouraged to begin searching for colleges and
applying for scholarships earlier as well. It should be normal that nearly every graduating student is
receiving some sort of financial help that they themselves contributed to gaining. There needs to be
more support coming from faculty and advisors in public schools because certain family situations dont
provide the child with parental support. These suggestions are broad and idealistic because no matter
how much money the government can give, or how much encouragement and support can be provided
to students, there will always be a need for more money, and there will always be students who still have
an advantage; equal opportunity and option three in general are important but nearly impossible to
completely achieve. Option three proved itself to be less deliberative than options one or two because
the solutions called on general or idealistic plans that really just boil down to where the money will
come from that will allow for equal opportunity for young adults to gain a college education.
Our deliberations collectively exhibited fine deliberative proficiencies and everyone played off
each other well by accepting and even welcoming of others opinions. The discussion, personally and
from my impression of others responses, evoked a reflection of individual values, if for no other reason
than because it was required in order for everyone to play a part and participate. It was obvious that one
or two participants served as outliers in that they participated more than everyone else, but the majority
participated the same amount. If any areas of improvement in our deliberative skills stand out, its this
criterion that its necessary to adequately distributing speaking opportunities. The individual
deliberations among the three options differed in deliberative strength; however, overall the group
established a synchronization that upheld the nine criteria of a good deliberation sufficiently and
appeared to improve deliberation skills.