Here, Miller says that it is wrong to suggest that successful students have internalized the oppressive structure of academia. In other words, just because they follow it, does not mean that they mindlessly believe and adhere to it. Rather, Miller suggests that they follow it because they have no other choice. They lack the means needed "to change the system" so they are forced to adhere to it.

This reminds me of what we talked about in our last class. That is, how we believe that someone else is wrong because their "logic" is faulty. Such a belief implies that logic is purely objective, when it in fact, may not be. The question that arises from this observation is: who is to say who perceives the world clearly and who "misperceive[s] it?" How can we decipher which belief is correct?

I think Cooper goes along with this as well. That is, like Freire, she holds the overwhelmingly positive belief that if teachers just show students how to learn, then they will "know exactly what to think" about an issue. Such a philosophy is partially troubling because it implies that there is only one "correct" way of thinking, and that it is relatively easy to convince students to accept it.

Nearly all our readings are responding to Freire's claim that the "banking concept" of education is extremely wrong and ineffective. In her book, Cooper provided ways for teachers to divorce themselves from tradititional pedagogy teaching practices. One of the biggest ways is through classroom discussion, where everyone, not just the teacher, has a chance to talk and voice their opinions. This overrides the assumption that the teacher is the only person with knowledge and intellect in the class.

I have heard this term used a lot in the last four years. Even when I was unsure what the word precisely meant, I understood it to have negative connotations. OED defines complicity as, "the state of being involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing." If Miller is using the term in this way than that's a pretty risky way to title his piece. It implies that the structure of academia is corrupted.

I like what he is saying here. It implies that the classroom is a safe place to learn the tools needed to succeed in academia. Although a student will feel overwhelmed by large ammounts of reading, they can reach out to their professor and get helpful suggestions and tips. Asking in the classroom is therefore safer and more proactive than asking on the job.

This just happened to me last Summer when I felt pretty guilty about putting down a book I was reading for fun. As an English major, I feel an extra incentive to keep reading because that's what people expect of me. That is, since I am devoting a great deal of my life and school career to reading, I am required to finish all books I pick up. If I don't, then I have somehow failed.