Summary Of America Needs Its Nerds

Articles published as opinion-editorial pieces in the New York Times must meet a standard of validity as they express substantial judgments, but one article, published in 1990, has managed to erroneously place itself amongst the multitude of scholarly articles. The article “America Needs Its Nerds” lacks validity behind its central claim due to the fact that its supporting evidence is wrongly based on misconceptions, generalizations, assumptions, and unfair comparisons. Leonid Fridman, writer of “America Needs Its Nerds,” is correct in his message that Americans should treat intellectualism with greater respect, but presumptuous statements make his argument weak. As Mr. Fridman bashes the American mindset concerning intellectualism he states,
Mr.Fridman’s argument encompasses a larger scale as he compares the American perspective of intellectualism to views in other parts of the world, namely Japan, “University professorships are the most prestigious and materially rewarding positions. But not in America, where average professional ballplayers are much more respected and better paid than faculty members of the best universities.”(Print) Mr.Fridman’s comparison rings true under the analyzation of money distribution in America; the comparison effectively conveys the prominence athleticism has over intellectualism in the United States. Although Mr. Fridman does provide a solid comparison to add validity to his argument, he fails to do so with his second comparison, “in East Asia, a kid who studies hard is lauded and held up as an example to other students while in the U.S. he or she is ostracized.” (Print) This is an unfair comparison because Mr. Fridman first makes a reference to how the East Asian student is viewed by his teachers then he goes on to compare that reference to how the American student is viewed by other students, not teachers. Mr. Fridman is comparing two different perspectives on the students to substantiate a broad generalization. In comparison to Mr.Fridman’s article, Daniel DaChance’s passage, also published in the New York Times as an opinion-editorial piece, contained factual evidence to support his claims. DaChance’s central argument was that the efforts to remedy the problem of overextended death penalty trials by reforming the appellate process have been unsuccessful. DaChance then goes on to support his claim by stating, “In 1996, when the average stay on death row was approaching 11 years, Congress enacted legislation restricting death-row inmates’ access to federal courts, in order to speed up executions. But it didn’t work; since then, the time between sentencing and