Do Universities Provide "The Good Life"?

“The good life” essay attempts to make an agreement with William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson’s discussion on universities’ and the lack of enriched education, using Chapman University as the prime example. Many of the paragraphs are contradictory, vague, and do not support the argument stated in the thesis. After reading the essay, the reader is left confused; the author is unclear in whether she feels universities are capable of providing a well-rounded education or if they are all inept, “corporate” universities.

The first paragraph dismisses all Ivy League schools straight off, asserting “[Ivy Leagues] are not taking an active role in preparing their students to be active members of society”. The rest of the essay continues without any mention of the Ivy Leagues and gives no support to the previous claim. After completely dismissing large Ivy League schools, the author contends that smaller, private campuses like Chapman University “are a little more active but still not as much as one would like to see”. This statement is contradicted many times throughout the essay. “The good life” is too-vague a phrase and the author struggles to make a strong connection between the universities and their effectiveness to provide “the good life”. The essay would be more concise had the writer referred more often to the ideas William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson established in their discussion. The notion that students in college are products of a system that encourages them to pursue prestige admissions and lucrative jobs rather than a stimulating education has a lot of evidence to support it. Instead, the writer tends to be unconvincing in the portrayal of this idea.

The example of religious private schools as a contributor of an in-depth education makes sense, as religious schools tend to have mandatory religion classes that may provide strength in a student’s spirituality. Even though the author felt connected to the teachers at the religious university, there are many examples of students who feel just as connected to their teachers at small, secular universities. Religion and spirituality may be an aspect of “the good life”, but it does not mean that only religious-based universities can provide an elevating education. The paragraph could have been improved had the writer expanded on William Deresiewicz’s example of how religious schools and old literary societies provided students with access to “the big questions”.

Classes at universities are centered on the subject of the class. The author expects too much when she claims her business classes only focus on business, not “the underlying issue[s] of succeeding at life”. It’s expected that some classes should encourage students to search for the big questions, but the main focus is to teach the analytic and rhetorical skills necessary for success in a particular field. Students should depend on their life experiences and pursue their own thoughts on life rather than depend on their business classes. The writer becomes unclear when she mentions the issue of Chapman teachers getting fired for unacceptable credentials; she declares “these are the teachers that we as students want!”, but does not emphasize what made these particular teachers great. The opportunity to bond with a teacher at Chapman is extremely accessible, if that is an aspect of “the good life” and a great education, then obtaining these things is not impossible.

The author rejects Chapman’s program, giving the ambiguous reason that the school is not “making us worthy global citizens”. The term “worthy citizen” isn’t expanded on, leaving the reader perplexed when she continues to discuss the wide-variety of fine study abroad and internship programs available to Chapman students. “These are the programs that really do teach us to live the good life”, the author states, contradicting the previous idea that Chapman was incapable of providing anything of worth to its students. Greek life, volunteer work, and athletics at Chapman are all reflected on positively; the writer claims that they do indeed “teach you morals and values”. The reader is again thrown off-track when the following paragraph snubs Chapman for giving formal education that apparently “is not a contribution that prepares you for the real world”. The author could have supported her thoughts on formal education not being valuable with evidence from the bloggingheads video or other personal examples.

The essay begins with the focus on universities’ lack of asking the “big questions”, but fails to give any evidence or supportive statements. The writer maintains the idea that Chapman does not take an active role in preparing students for “the good life”, but still highlights the helpfulness of the schools’ greek life, volunteer programs, and athletics. If there are so many “amazing things taught in universities”, doesn’t “the good life” become a product of this education?