Joining the Conversation
- Gerald Graff begins his essay with the view that we gen- erally associate “book smarts” with intellectualism and “street smarts” with anti-intellectualism. Graff then provides an extended example from his early life to counter this view- point. What do you think of his argument that boyhood conversations about sports provided a solid foundation for his later intellectual life? What support does he provide, and how persuasive is it?
- Graff argues in paragraph 13 that the intellectual world is much like the world of team sports, with “rival texts …, rival theories …, and elaborate team competitions.” Can you think of any examples from your own experience that support this assertion? In what ways do you think “the real intellectual world” is different from the world of team sports?
- Imagine a conversation between Graff and Mike Rose (pp. 277–89) on the intellectual skills people can develop outside the realm of formal education and the benefits of these skills.
- So what? Who cares? Graff does not answer these questions explicitly. Do it for him: write a brief paragraph saying why his argument matters, and for whom.
- Graff argues that schools should encourage students to think critically, read, and write about areas of personal interest such as cars, fashion, or music—as long as they do so in an intellectually serious way. What do you think? Write an essay considering the educational merits of such a proposal, taking Graff’s argument as a “they say.”
The Correct Answer and Explanation is :
1. Gerald Graff’s Argument About Boyhood Conversations and Intellectual Life
Gerald Graff argues that his boyhood conversations about sports laid a foundation for his later intellectual life by teaching him how to engage in debates, analyze rival perspectives, and think critically. He compares the competitive nature of sports discussions to intellectual debates, emphasizing that both require engagement with opposing viewpoints, structured reasoning, and a willingness to learn from others. Graff supports this argument by detailing his experience of growing up in a working-class environment where intellectualism wasn’t initially valued, but sports provided a language of competition that could be applied to more academic pursuits later. His argument is persuasive to an extent because it highlights how everyday activities can cultivate skills useful in intellectual work. However, one might argue that Graff’s experience is specific and may not be universally applicable—some may not find that sports discussions naturally transfer to intellectual pursuits. Overall, though, his point about developing critical thinking and debate skills through informal, non-academic conversations is valid.
2. Graff’s Comparison of Intellectual World to Team Sports
Graff compares the intellectual world to the world of team sports, where there are “rival texts,” “rival theories,” and “elaborate team competitions.” An example from my own experience could be in a debate club, where participants often defend competing viewpoints with the goal of persuading others. Just like in sports, there is a constant engagement with opposing ideas, and success is often dependent on the strength of one’s argument. However, the intellectual world is different in that the stakes are not as clearly defined or as tangible as in sports. While winning in a debate may feel like a victory, the ultimate aim in intellectual pursuits is the expansion of knowledge, not just defeat of an opponent. Additionally, intellectual competitions often lack the structured, physical aspect that defines team sports, where teamwork and physical skill are essential.
3. A Conversation Between Graff and Mike Rose
A conversation between Gerald Graff and Mike Rose could revolve around the idea that people can develop intellectual skills outside formal education, which both authors acknowledge in different ways. Graff argues that intellectual skills are not confined to the classroom, drawing on his own experience with street smarts, while Mike Rose emphasizes the importance of informal learning in everyday life. They might agree that learning to think critically about personal interests—whether it’s sports, music, or cars—can help build the foundation for more academic intellectual work. Rose might add that such informal learning can also help people develop a love for learning, which can then be transferred to more formal contexts. Both would likely agree that intellectualism isn’t limited to school settings and can be nurtured in many areas of life.
4. Why Graff’s Argument Matters
Graff’s argument matters because it challenges the traditional divide between “book smarts” and “street smarts,” encouraging a more inclusive view of intellectualism. His perspective can benefit both students and educators. For students, it offers validation for the skills they may already possess, such as critical thinking, argumentation, and analysis, which are often developed outside the classroom. For educators, Graff’s argument encourages the integration of students’ personal interests and informal knowledge into the curriculum, helping to bridge the gap between students’ lived experiences and academic content. By broadening the definition of intellectualism, Graff promotes a more engaging and comprehensive approach to education that recognizes diverse forms of learning.
5. Encouraging Students to Think Critically About Personal Interests
Graff’s proposal to encourage students to think critically about personal interests such as cars, fashion, or music offers significant educational merit. Such a proposal allows students to connect academic work with their passions, making learning more relevant and engaging. By applying intellectual rigor to subjects they already care about, students can develop their critical thinking, research, and writing skills in a meaningful context. Additionally, it opens up the possibility of exploring new perspectives and discovering intellectual connections in areas they might not have considered before. However, there are challenges, such as ensuring that students approach their interests in a serious and analytical way, rather than just as a casual pursuit. Educators would need to guide students in framing these interests intellectually while fostering a sense of intellectual curiosity. This approach can foster a deeper love for learning and more nuanced thinking, which benefits students in both academic and everyday life.