Para 1 original:

Lukianoff and Haidt’s main idea is similar to Dweck’s in teaching students how to think. A major part of there article is that students who are in college are in an environment that is less focused on education, and more concerned with political correctness and making sure everyone is comfortable in the classroom. Teachers and students together are scared to make comments that could potentially offend people by making microaggressions towards them. This creates an almost impossible task for a teacher to teach a class and speak about course content and having intellectual discussions with students. Teachers are to worried about maybe offending some students in the classroom. Another issue for professors are trigger warnings which are “alerts that professors are expected to issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional response.” Now professors have to worry that the material that they are teaching could offend students potentially. For a student like myself, I hate when a teacher has to tiptoe through material so they do not offend anyone. In most cases the students are not offended and understand that the professor is just teaching the material. That does not mean that it is the professor’s personal opinion, that is just what they are supposed to teach. For example if a class is learning about the holocaust, students want to actually learn about it, and not here a censored lecture from a professor because of a select 1% of students who could be offended by the material. 

Para 1 Revised: Lukianoff and Haidt’s main idea is similar to Dweck’s in teaching students how to think. A major part of there article is that students who are in college are in an environment that is less focused on education, and more concerned with political correctness and making sure everyone is comfortable in the classroom. The idea here is that safe spaces have affected the classroom environment in a negative way. The impact on students is that the classroom has become a space where students are unable to feel comfortable and say what is on there mind. Teachers and students together are scared to make comments that could potentially offend people by making microaggressions towards them. This creates an almost impossible task for a teacher to teach a class and speak about course content. The professor becomes unable to and have an intellectual discussion with students due to oversensitivity. In a class at law class at Harvard, students asked the professor “not to teach rape law-or, in one case, even use the word violate lest it cause students distress.” (Lukianoff/Haidt) Professors are supposed to teach a curriculum, not one they choose themselves, but one they are given, and students requesting that some material being removed from class creates a huge issue for the professor. Also, it is important to be taught rape law, as a pre-law major, because in the real world, rape unfortunately happens, and they need to be educated on the subject so they can go and apply themselves to the real world. The attitude these students have towards the subject matter resembles Dweck’s idea of a fixed mindset. Instead of learning about rape law and using it to their advantage, they do not want to learn about it at all because some of the content is offensive. A person with a growth mindset would want to learn about these laws because it is something that is relevant to their career after school. Another issue for professors are trigger warnings which are “alerts that professors are expected to issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional response.” (Lukianoff/Haidt) Now professors have to worry that the material that they are teaching could offend students potentially. For a student like myself, I hate when a teacher has to tiptoe through material so they do not offend anyone. In most cases the students are not offended and understand that the professor is just teaching the material. That does not mean that it is the professor’s personal opinion, that is just what they are supposed to teach. For example if a class is learning about the holocaust, students want to actually learn about it, and not here a censored lecture from a professor because of a select 1% of students who could be offended by the material.

In this paragraph, I stated how Dweck and Lukianoff/Haidt were similar, and I did not explain or show originally there relation. In the edited paragraph I went into Lukianoff and Haidt and the example they used of the Harvard students who did not want to learn about rape law, and then compared it to Dweck’s idea of a fixed mindset.

Para 2 original:

Dweck’s main idea is teaching students how to think with a growth mindset instead of a fixed mindset. Dweck tested out her mindset theory on a group of 10 year old students by giving them math problems that were above what they have been taught. Some of the students reacted in a “shockingly positive way.” Dweck saw that these kids “understood that their abilities could be developed. They had what I call a growth mindset.” Dweck believes that teaching students to think with a positive mindset that they can grow and develop off of teaches them to learn better than traditional teaching styles. It is crazy that teaching children traditionally is still a thing. We should be teaching kids how to think for themselves and how to positively grow and develop into self sufficient smart kids who can go on to succeed in future education. 

Para 2 Revised:

Dweck’s main idea is teaching students how to think with a growth mindset instead of a fixed mindset. Dweck tested out her mindset theory on a group of 10 year old students by giving them math problems that were above what they have been taught. Some of the students reacted in a “shockingly positive way.” Dweck saw that these kids “understood that their abilities could be developed. They had what I call a growth mindset.” This is how you are supposed to teach kids in school, especially at the elementary level. It creates a work ethic, and a positive attitude which are the two single most important life skills to have. If a student is equipped with the critical thinking skills and the determination to learn, they can take that with them wherever they go in life. These are skills that kids carry with them forever and do not forget. When I was in elementary school, I was taught by my times tables and how to write in cursive. Two things that I never really use at all. If I were taught how to think critically and a growth mindset, I would be way better equipped to deal with the workload of both high school and college. Dweck believes that teaching students to think with a positive mindset that they can grow and develop off of teaches them to learn better than traditional teaching styles. It is crazy that teaching children traditionally is still a thing. We should be teaching kids how to think for themselves and how to positively grow and develop into self sufficient smart kids who can go on to succeed in future education. 

The original paragraph here was mostly a summary with a little bit of my own thoughts. I went back into the paragraph and gave my perspective and argued my point. I made a point by relating the text to myself.