Before answering the questions tabled in class, we must establish some basic facts surrounding the text as that is ultimately what we will be discussing here. Now I know this is perfectly obvious for everyone involved, but clarity on the meaning of the text and where one can take an argument in support of solutions to the problem of the five paragraph essay defined in the text is key for the development of this piece of writing. Thus, to expedite this process, I will quickly state the main point the author of The Five-Paragraph Essay is making which is the structure is too rigidly defined and ignores the individual concerns each piece of writing has and takes great care in distinguishing an essay with five paragraphs and one where the form is proscribed and content is poured into a mould, like cake in a cake tin or metal into a sword mould. They also take care to say their criticism of the form is akin to criticising a symptom and notably critiques the whole educational system for being obsessed with measurable results rather than teaching and learning for their own sake.

Based on the tone here, one can infer (correctly, I might add, so congratulations!) that I am more inclined to agree with such points and would helpfully note the educational system, as I have observed in my years of schooling, is profoundly obsessed with test preparation and less so with a profound interrogation of the conclusions derived from thousands of years of building on an expanding base of human knowledge. With the Common Core system and No Child Left Behind alongside the SAT, ACT, APs, IBs, Regents, and the veritable assortment of absurd tests designed to measure achievement, we have tried to confine everything, including the areas of knowledge that aren’t so easily quantifiable, into a narrow checklist that we can measure on a test, we have deindividualised education in favour of reducing costs of education. As a result, teachers are less able to respond to individual needs and to take a special interest in a student’s work in the subject area they are given dominion over. This is particularly glaring in the public schools with less money than richer schools and as such have worse quality textbooks, less access to subjects considered superfluous by the established powers that be, those hypercompetent rulers who obviously know what’s best which is why inequality in our society is so low and why the people are profoundly happy with life in the current era.

Now you may ask yourself, how did I get here? How did we get from ridiculous nonsense about tabling questions to the bastards in charge? Dear reader, do you trust me to know what I’m doing? This all has a purpose. What purpose, you may or may not see, but there certainly is one. I certainly didn’t think we’d actually end up here and it’s not like I’m trying to waste time or something? (Well shit, I might be busted on this. Maybe if I puff myself up I can get away with it. Thank you National Geographic.) But in all seriousness, the agreement I expressed above and the addition of my reasons for my agreement beg the question if you wanted to get rid of such a system that is ultimately at the centre of the critique and thus get rid of that five paragraph template, then what would you replace it with? Looking back that my reasoning, it naturally follows that, in an ideal society, we model education on the Oxonian system of tutorials where people study under those who have greater knowledge of a certain topic than they do and truly grapple with assorted oeuvres from a variety of subject areas. In essence, a truer variety of liberal arts than currently exists in many colleges where people nominally gain exposure to different subject areas and promply specialise once they fulfil their requirements. I realise this is utopian due to the sheer costs one could inevitable bring up, but one can also do well to discuss a median point where people still get more individual attention and can be taught how to write and do many other things at their own pace rather than the standard pace because people don’t work that way. A variation on this would be to have students sample varieties of essays that are written in a variety of styles and to have them choose for themselves how they would like to write and organise their thoughts. This may be a more feasible one, but would still require much more guidance and oversight than can currently be managed with a teacher to student ratio of around 1:40.

Ultimately, I believe we need some kind of reform to it all and we would do well to understand as the Yes, Minister episode “The Economy Drive” points out, education and just about most anything in society (in the case of that episode, public transportation, but the driver generalised to that which the government controls) in the dominion of government can be more readily solved when those with power also have to be a part of the systems they are responsible for. If people in business, government, and finance were required to educate their children publicly rather than privately, the whole system would improve because they wouldn’t tolerate being given a sub-par good/service. That may be a bit more doable, but it’s a matter for fixing by members of the public and those who have power. Knowing based on a heuristic analysis of society and politics, it’s a bit unlikely. However, I would do well to mention that those options I gave were alternatives to the present system and the structure of the five paragraph essay, not whether one could necessarily implement these easily. Thus, we come to the end of our program where we can reiterate being taught all of this and how to write can come down to a more individual method, as elaborated on above. Thank you and good night. (Oscar orchestral theme plays me off)

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.