I happen to agree with Graff and his perspective for many deferent reasons. Meaning schools and colleges should be held accountable for not being able to help those street smart teenagers and help turn their knowledge of life into academic work. Teachers should help these students learn how to understand he academics their teaching them with examples of the street smart knowledge they already obtain.
Graff sees his story as containing an important lesson for the improvement of K American public education. Argument-Centered Education embraces this lesson through the resources we produce, the training we conduct, and the implementation coaching we provide.
To take two recent examples of argument-centered projects we have work on with partner schools: Professor Graff notes that these moves are not only taken up by some of the most progressive, advancing, and college-directed middle and high schools: What a waste, we think, that one who is so intelligent about so many things in life seems unable to apply that intelligence to academic work.
Nor do we consider one of the major reasons why schools and colleges overlook the intellectual potential of street smarts: The trouble with this assumption is that no necessary connection has ever been established between any text or subject and the educational depth and weight of the discussion it can generate.
Real intellectuals tum any subject, however lightweight it may seem, into grist for their mill through the thoughtful questions they bring to it, whereas a dullard will find a way to drain the interest out of the richest subject.
Students do need to read models of intellectually challenging writing — and Orwell is a great one — if they are to become intellectuals themselves. But they would be more prone to take on intellectual identities if we encouraged them to do so at first on subjects that interest them rather than ones that interest us.
I offer my own adolescent experience as a case in point. I also loved the sports novels for boys of John R. Negotiating this class boundary was a tricky matter. On the other hand, I was desperate for the approval of the hoods, whom I encountered daily on the playing field and in the neighborhood, and for this purpose it was not at all good to be book-smart.
The hoods would turn on you if they sensed you were putting on airs over them: I grew up torn, then, between the need to prove I was smart and the fear of a beating if I proved it too well; between the need not to jeopardize my respectable future and the need to impress the hoods.
As I lived it, the conflict came down to a choice between being physically tough and being verbal. In one way, then, it would be hard to imagine an adolescence more thoroughly anti-intellectual than mine.
When Marilyn Monroe married the playwright Arthur Miller in after divorcing the retired baseball star Joe DiMaggio, the symbolic triumph of geek over jock suggested the way the wind was blowing. Even Elvis, according to his biographer Peter Guralnick, turns out to have supported Adlai over Ike in the presidential election of The germs had actually been planted in the seemingly philistine debates about which boys were the toughest.
I see now that in the interminable analysis of sports teams, movies, and toughness that my friends and I engaged in-a type of analysis, needless to say, that the real toughs would never have stooped to-I was already betraying an allegiance to the egghead world.
I was practicing being an intellectual before I knew that was what I wanted to be. It was in reading and arguing about sports and toughness that I experienced what it felt like to propose a generalization, restate and respond to a counterargument, and perform other intellectualizing operations, including composing the kind of sentences I am writing now.
Only much later did it dawn on me that the sports world was more compelling than school because it was more intellectual than school, not less. Sports after all was full of challenging arguments, debates, problems for analysis, and intricate statistics that you could care about, as school conspicuously was not.
I believe that street smarts beat out book smarts in our culture not because street smarts are nonintellectual, as we generally suppose, but because they satisfy an intellectual thirst more thoroughly than school culture, which seems pale and unreal. They also satisfy the thirst for community.
When you entered sports debates, you became part of a community that was not limited to your family and friends, but was national and public.
Sports introduced you not only to a culture steeped in argument, but to a public argument culture that transcended the personal. To be sure, school contained plenty of competition, which became more invidious as one moved up the ladder and has become even more so today with the advent of high-stakes testing.
In this competition, points were scored not by making arguments, but by a show of information or vast reading, by grade-grubbing, or other forms of one-upsmanship.
And in distancing themselves from anything as enjoyable and absorbing as sports, my schools missed the opportunity to capitalize on an element of drama and conflict that the intellectual world shares with sports.
Consequently, I failed to see the parallels between the sports and academic worlds that could have helped me cross more readily from one argument culture to the other.
Sports is only one of the domains whose potential for literacy training and not only for males is seriously underestimated by educators, who see sports as competing with academic development rather than a route to it.
For students who get excited about the chance to write about their passion for cars will often write as poorly and unreflectively on that topic as on Shakespeare or Plato.
Here is the flip side of what I pointed out before: If I am right, then schools and colleges are missing an opportunity when they do not encourage students to take their nonacademic interests as objects of academic study.
Lucky to Be a Yankee. Strikeout Story, New York: Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley.Gerald Graff believed that street smarts beat out school smarts in our culture because they seem to satisfy the intellectual thirst more than the boring and unreal school culture.
He goes onto explain that by talking about subjects such as sports, one is able to experience the topics of arguments, debates, and even statistics in a way that the subjects in school could not live up to. Generally, Gerald Graff’s essay, “Hidden Intellectualism” has both negative and positive influences.
The first positive aspect is that it enables the reader to gain knowledge and understanding of the meaning of intellectualism, its merits and demerits. Gerald Graff's Hidden Intellectualism Essay - Co-author of “They Say/I Say” handbook, Gerald Graff, analyzes in his essay “Hidden Intellectualism” that “street smarts” can be used for more efficient learning and can be a valuable tool to train students to “get hooked on reading and writing” (Graff ).
Home / Hip hop music Essays / Gerald graff pop culture in academics admin 15 Dec 0 Comments In Gerald Graff “Hidden Intellectualism,” Graff argues that schools should encourage students to think critically, read, and write about areas of personal interest such as cars, fashion, or music but as long as they do so in an intellectually way.
Hidden Intellectualism In his article “Hidden Intellectualism,” Gerald Graff criticizes those that do not put value into “street smarts.
” Graff insists that knowledge goes far beyond academic learning and continues into the everyday world. As a child, Graff always looked for a happy medium between brawn and brain. Former Modern Language Association President (), prominent education theorist, and ACE founding adviser, Gerald Graff, tells a story in his essay “Hidden Intellectualism” of how he learned to be an intellectual not in school, which he really didn’t like, but by arguing about sports (especially baseball, especially the Cubs) with his friends.