The Good Life: What About it?

From what I could gather, this essay (The Good Life) makes an attempt at identifying whether or not universities answer students big questions. Also, the author feels as though her university, Chapman, is not including these principles in the curriculum. I think beyond whether or not universities are answering the questions, the concern here should be if they even should try to answer them. Are we supposed to assume from the beginning of the essay that they are?

Universities are all different, which means they would all teach different answers. This initially may seem good, but in the end it's wrong because people are paying for an academic education, not some kind of spiritual guide. It's better for schools to stick to teaching academics, because if they taught issues of morality there would inevitably be bitter disagreements, and the schools could potentially push a political or social agenda forward while claiming that they're simply answering the big questions. 

In the second paragraph, the author states, "Most schools are just there to fill a student’s mind with knowledge and facts, not to get you thinking and make your own decisions about the facts you receive."

The same thing could be said about teaching students about 'big questions.' 

It is just as possible that a university could explain big questions in a way that trains students end up being leaders . Therefore, I don't believe that answering students' big questions is a good example of teaching them how to think for themselves. It's just as much filling their brains with answers as it is academic 'facts.' I certainly agree that universities should prepare students to think for themselves, but answering their big questions will not help. On the contrary, by keeping strictly to academics, students will be able to focus on learning their trade while in school, so that they will be free to experience the answers to their big questions in life outside of school. 

The author  makes a great point in the next paragraph, when she determines that, "Many smaller private schools are religiously based, making them more active in seeing students not only succeed in their major but also to succeed in all aspects of their life." She is right in saying that since private schools are religiously based, they help students succeed in other areas of life. But the point is that those schools teach according to religious doctrine, therefore they have a specific way to answer questions, based on the teachings of a church. Does this mean that all schools should be private schools? No. But if they aren't, then they shouldn't bother to try an answer the big questions. 

The major dispute I have with this essay is the fact that it is about how Chapman doesn't do enough to answer the big questions, yet she lists several reasons how Chapman does give opportunities to lead better lives, but doesn't explain why they aren't good enough to give the school a good name in that area. she says, "Chapman does give you the opportunity to take matters into your own hands and learn on your own. There are many activities and groups to participate in on and off campus. Chapman has activities such as Greek life, volunteer work, athletics and much more. Many of my friends are part of sororities which teach you morals and values. My roommate says, 'Our Sorority teaches us sisterhood and how to watch out for one another, along with being a lady and a useful member of society.'"

So my question is, what about this is not answering big questions? Sisterhood, watching out for one another, and being a useful member of society all sound like traits that I would associate with living the good life. She goes on to explain, 

"Furthermore, Chapman would like to think they are preparing us to become global citizens. They are giving us the opportunity to become global citizens but not making us worthy global citizens what so ever. They give us the opportunity to participate in programs such as traveling abroad and internships. These are the programs that really do teach us to live the good life. These internships teach us to become more active in our society and get us to focus on what our morals and ethics really are. "

Again, these are all positive opportunities given by Chapman to its students. If they so clearly explain to students, "[how] to become more active in society," and "get us to focus on what our morals and ethics really are," then what more could you ask for from a college, in terms of being taught how to live the good life? 

It seems perfectly clear that while Chapman may not necessarily devote classes to topics regarding 'the good life,' or 'how to answer the Big Question,' they offer many other ways to contribute positively to society. This also returns to the question of whether or not schools should bother to create spiritual and moral environments for students. Because if people like this author can see how the university really does affect students personal lives, but still manage to complain about it not answering the big questions, what are they still looking for? 

The activities listed in the previous paragraphs that Chapman provides, is as close to answering the big questions as I believe is necessary. If they tried any harder, it would result in a very forced atmosphere, where all the students are taught to live the same way, and any kind of individual deduction or interpretation is stripped away.