In Praise of the F Word Essay

According to, In kudos of the F Word, by Mary Sherry tens of thousands depart graduate high direct with meaningless diplomas. Those with meaningless diplomas be the ones whos been passing along so far though they dont truly consider the materials taught to them. Sherry argues that our commandmental system is to fault for cheating those disciples out of a proper education however, an easy remedy is for instructors to routine the go card of ill luck. Sherry crys that before assimilators send word concentrate, the teacher involvefully to foreshorten their attention low gear.I book with Sherry that its unfair to those pupil cheated by our educational system nevertheless her trump card of break awayure doesnt solve the problem. or else, it feels to a greater extent than akin a threat to the student than a motivation. Her method is at variance(p) for every students because whole student atomic number 18 variant and it takes a teachers involvement to unders tand, non a teachers threat. Sherry used blame the students pretermit of concentration to the clique exclusively instead she now blames the failure to get the students attention.No matter what doubt are at hand for the student, the teacher require to get the students attention first. Sherry states that in that respect are many focal points to do this depending on the teaching style but one accepted way is the trump card of failure. She points out an exercising of her son who was lacking attention in classify and then received the trump card of failure. It resulted in her son finishing the semester with an A. I feel like Sherrys argument is incomplete. She doesnt acknowledge that all students are different, and that some accompany from a more rugged sufferground than others.Different students need to be treated differently, so one method go out not work on all students. For example, thither are students that plainly do not understand the material taught to them so ins tead they leave excuses. Teachers volition underwrite the students excuse as a lack of attention and fail that student but instead all that student needs is a bit of guidance. Sherrys method go out not work for students that are afraid to pick up for back up. Furthermore, the threat will not help the student but give the doubt in their abilities. A tool for motivation overrules into a tool for discouragement.Instead of facing the challenge head on with the help of the teacher, the students are left alone with the threat doughnut in their ears. Students that cornerstonet take the stuff eventually drop out, students that can ripe concord to themselves and barely passing by. I admit that Sherry brings up a good point In localise for a student to succeed in initiate, they first need to be attentive. Teachers need to find way to get the students attention but Sherrys one all be all way will not help the teacher nor the students. Sherry implies that students perceive educati on as less substantial compared to their adult counterparts. no matter what environments they come from students will not put school as a top priority on their list.Her argument was that for adults, even with complications in life i. e. unemployment, drug, abusive relationship, still make an effort towards higher education. Sherry states that compared to the adults, students rather be rakish while on cruise control by dint of school. I wholeheartedly agree with Sherry that students would rather feed a fun stress free school life instead of a prison, but I have a problem with her implications of a august environments.Sherry hints that environments does not coin a students involvement in school but i think shes severely inaccurate. Where a student come from, i. e. his lifes background, greatly affect what kind of person that student will turn out to be. For example, a student can come from a background that greatly cling tos education at the same time, another student can come from a background that could care significantly less about education. Not everyone is molded the same, there are students that are eager to learn, while there are also students that would refuse the help of a teacher.Sherry claims that the threat of flunking can be used as a positive teaching tool a show of confidence by the teacher and lift to the student. However, She also completely fails to specify why students fail in the first place. There are students who doesnt value education because of their unsupportive parents. Sherrys son might be an inaccurate example because not all students have an english teacher as a parent. My friend Hao is a perfect example. Hao and I were best friends in middle school and freshmen form high school.His parents are always working so hes exceedingly relaxed towards school. Everytime I precipitate out with him hes either vie video games or watching movies. Eventually the lack of care for school caught up with him and he was held back for anothe r freshman year. We try to keep in touch but our friendship grew apart because we arent in the same grade anymore. Sometime we would go weeks without seeing each other and the intervals just got hourlong each time. The times I do see him, I can tell hes miserable.He dropped out without telling me and to this day I still wonder if I encouraged him alittle more about school, maybe he wouldve graduated with me. To my friend, Hao, school was just not important to him and even a threat of failure will not prevail on _or_ upon him otherwise. In his world, games were more important and school is just a nuisance. He was never taught the true value of an education by his parents. I know hes not alone and there are many students like him. Although their world might not be gaming, it could be something else like friends, drugs, intercourse, etc.Sherrys trump card of failure would of failed them, instead they need support not threats. While Sherry may claim that the success of the trump card of failure in the past. I would like to point out that things are forgotten for a reason. In this care the trump card of failure is deemed ineffective against the youths of today. Her method of teachers victimisation threats against students for their attention will not help but damage. Everyone is unique and teachers need to deploy unique play to encourage students. A word of threat can only get so far, but the emergence greatly outweighs the worth.