Education and Quality (Priya Dhairyawan)

In this week's reading, the narrator talked about the manner in which schools operate. Students are expected to imitate exactly what the teachers want, but are not supposed to copy them exactly; instead, students must rephrase the teacher's ideas in order to feign originality, while still using the teacher's ideas. "...students should be outraged by someone trying to use them to seek the truth, to imitate it. To actually search for it was a damned imposition" (184). Eliminating grades would, in my opinion, increase education, as Phaedrus explained. He mentioned that complete originality can earn grades ranging from A's to F's, so students fear being original, as they have a better chance of getting good grades by imitating the teacher's thoughts. The absence of grades in school would allow students more freedom in their beliefs, giving them the opportunity to explore different ideas, without having to worry about getting a bad grade.
Like Phaedrus's students, I am also confused and frustrated with his discussion of quality. It is irritating to not be able to define the word, yet know what it means; many people see it in the same way, but it is difficult to define in words. "But even though Quality cannot be defined, you know what Quality is!" (185). I can definitely relate to the students' frustration with Phaedrus's lecture. He has defied the standard of teachers feeding information to students, which the students will then imitate. Instead, he is forcing them to think for themselves, regardless of how abstract the concept it, not only for the students, but for him as well. " Up to now Phaedrus had been compelled by the academic system to say what he wanted, even though he knew that this forced students to conform to artificial forms that destroyed their own creativity. Students who went along with his rules were then condemned for their inability to be creative or produce a piece of work that reflected their own personal standards of what is good" (187).
The novel has continued to follow its structure of alternating between the narrator's travels with his son and friends, and the story of Phaedrus. Even though different concepts are discussed throughout the book, I am growing very bored with how the novel is progressing. It seems like an endless cycle of traveling and following Phaedrus's life. One other thing that has been bothering me from the beginning is that the narrator has still not been given a name. Is it because we should assume his name is Phaedrus, or is there another reason?