Stanford and ICU Tokyo Classes Collaborate
This fall, undergraduate students from Stanford University and International Christian University (ICU), Tokyo worked together on a series of responses to scholars who write about liberal arts education. They wanted to join the international conversation around education and shape the ways we understand and value the liberal arts. The students at Stanford were in their first-year class in the Program in Writing and Rhetoric (PWR), and the students at ICU were in a first-year research writing class in the English for Liberal Arts (ELA) Program.* After doing research into theories and practices about liberal arts education, students virtually "met" twice in video-conferences to exchange views. During the meetings, the time in California was 5pm, while in Tokyo it was 9am the following day. For their second meeting, they wrote collaboratively to compose opinion/editorial responses to some of the scholars they were investigating. Below, you will find selections from their work together.
*Stanford class: "The Rhetoric of Liberal Arts
Education," with John Peterson
ICU class: "Research Writing," with Paul Wadden
ICU class: "Research Writing," with Paul Wadden
Op-Ed Blog Posts on William Deresiewicz, Stanford-ICU Exchange Fall 2016
 |
| William Deresiewicz |
Of course money matters: jobs matter, financial security matters, national prosperity matters [….] You need to get a job, but you also need to get a life. What’s the return on investment of having children, spending time with friends, listening to music, reading a book? The things that are most worth doing are worth doing for their own sake. Anyone who tells you that the sole purpose of education is the acquisition of negotiable skills is attempting to reduce you to a productive employee at work, a gullible consumer in the market, and a docile subject of the state. What’s at stake, when we ask what college is for, is nothing less than our ability to remain fully human. (78-79) William Deresiewicz, Chapter 5, “What is College For?” Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life, 2014.
Critical Responses from Students
Co-Written Preface
In speaking about what students should take from education, Tony Wagner, author of The Global Achievement Gap, repeats a common liberal arts motto: “It is not how much they know, but [...]what they can do with what they know.” Though most Japanese and American high schools (and some universities) focus on teaching students as much knowledge (i.e., information) as possible, they should put a more emphasis on teaching (guiding) them to think for themselves and the process of utilising the knowledge they acquire.
John Stuart Mill once said, “There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home.” That is why we have decided to share our own personal experiences as a group in order to portray how each and every one of us identifies with Deresiewicz’s and Wagner’s claims.
Individual Responses
I attended a high school that offered both the Advanced Placement as well as the International Baccalaureate curricula, and having taken classes in both programs, I feel that my experience was a mixed bag. I can understand how the culture of “teaching to a test” is especially prominent in U.S. high schools, as top students are focused on earning high scores to include on their college applications. However, I think that most of my classes in these programs emphasized that it was not just our goal to be able to answer multiple-choice questions, but that we should also be able to synthesize what we’d learned and use it to make broader analyses, and connect what we’d learned to real-world events. I know that this experience is not the same across the board for U.S. high schools, and seeing how beneficial it has been to have this liberal arts-like foundation before coming to Stanford, I would especially argue that this should be the case in more and more high schools around the world. --Taylor Butze, Stanford
In “What is College For?” Deresiewicz states that “anyone who tells you that the sole purpose of education is the acquisition of negotiable skills is attempting to reduce you to a productive employee at work, a gullible consumer in the market, and a docile subject of the state.” I think this connects to how the Japanese government recently announced that national universities should abolish the humanities and social science departments and should pay more attention to the technology and natural science areas which supposedly have more economic potential. The government’s intention is to cut back on any fields of study that apparently do not yield economic profit and focus on training specialists in technology, computer science etc. that will contribute to increasing the nation’s economic competitiveness. However, I think this economic perspective is not the only reason why the Japanese government tries to abolish the humanities and social sciences. Like Deresiewicz says, it may be to make the Japanese people “docile subjects of the state” by preventing them from receiving a liberal arts education and developing critical thinking skills. The government probably benefits more if the citizens remain “excellent sheep” that take whatever the government does for granted and won’t question or criticize or go against it in any way. This is also seen in Japanese high school education. Whether private or public, Japanese high schools use standardized textbooks that are supervised and supplied by the Japanese government. These textbooks are monotonous in tone and not very reader engaging; they are basically a linear sequence of facts. I think the general idea of the government is to keep the people under control by standardizing and equalizing the education system. Generally speaking, the Japanese people receive a fairly similar education throughout their high school years (other than in some exceptional environments such as in international schools), which is based on the government’s guidelines. This is also displayed in the Japanese college entrance system in which students all have an “equal” chance (regardless of the grades or activities they did in high school) to take the single national entrance examination held only once in January. The score they get on that single exam is basically all that there is to evaluate their ability; in other words, your ability, your individual qualities are reduced to just that numerical score. Therefore, it can be said that the Japanese government (namely, The Ministry of Education) has created a very singular and standardized education system that disregards any individualism or diversity. This idea of standardization is about to be further applied to colleges as well by cutting out the humanities and social sciences that are essential in developing an individual self. The government’s intention is to create people who are ignorant about themselves and the world around them, which means they can only but helplessly obey the orders of the government. --Mayako Shibagaki, ICU
My experience as an international student from Spain has allowed to me see what it is like to be involved in both a very narrow and theoretical education at my high school, as well as a broad and more practical education at Stanford. During the first 18 years of my life, my education has had the one and only purpose of injecting knowledge into my brain, knowledge that I didn’t know how to apply nor relate to real life situations. In Spain, I studied Science without even stepping into a laboratory. In Spain, I was expected to study the opinions of 14 philosophers without even exposing my own opinion about their thoughts since that would lower my grade. I was invaded with large amounts of information, but, I couldn’t find a use for it. However, my last two years of high school changed my perspective towards education and knowledge in general. When I changed into an American school in Spain, I was introduced to a completely new way to learn. I was allowed to question, to challenge, to discover. I realised that I hadn’t been learning but memorising. As Deresiewicz said, I had been “robbed.” But I am at Stanford now, I am ready to make up for that lost time. --Victoria Valverde, Stanford
I lived in a community that valued the abstract values of life rather than materialistic things which allowed me to appreciate things other than wealth. I feel like a liberal arts education helps instill those values in a student’s values and hopefully helps them explore courses that they would like and make a livelihood doing. Learning for memorization does not seem helpful and practical because when one does a job, they can ask for a redo or consult a book in the moment if they do not know how to approach a situation. It is also very liberating to be able to form your own opinion and be able to defend it without being asked not to do such a thing. It does test your limits because it is challenging to be able to think for oneself because in high school it was easier to get by just doing what they said, but not forming your own opinion and defending it. --Emanuel Vigil, Stanford
Born and raised in Japan, I took the Japanese style of education for granted; I was taught implicitly at high school that education was all about memorisation of “known facts” to prepare for a future career. However, one term of studying abroad in a Canadian public high school opened my eyes. The education system there was quite different—although it still required memorisation, the students had an opportunity to think for themselves and have their own opinions on what they were taught in class. That was when I began asking myself: “What could I get from memorisation-based studies that do not allow me to think?” That question I got from my experience in Canada influenced my decision of coming to ICU, where I can learn how to think.
As Deresiewicz claims in Excellent Sheep, “you need to get a job, but you also need to get a life” (78-79?). In other words, gaining a lot of knowledge never satisfies your life unless you are able to examine it with your own mind. The purpose of college is not to merely give us information; it is to make us realise that what we regard as unchangeable is actually uncertain, and to allow us to become critical thinkers.--Riho Matsumaru, ICU
All my life, as a STEM person, I was memorizing equations and numbers, but I soon came to realize that college should be liberating, not learning facts. If someone wanted to do that, they could read books. Training the mind to think: That is something that cannot be learned from textbooks. As Deresiewicz says, we must “become fully human” because there is so much more to life than the next test, than the next essay. --Javier A Garcia, Stanford
The view of education that has been instilled in me has always been centered around monetary success. Although most students in the United States are not required to declare a vocational track directly after high school like students in Japan are required to do, society still pushes us to have a solid idea of what it is we want to do with the rest of our lives. In my experience, this has not been so that we might learn as much as possible in a liberal environment about that field of work, but rather, so that we can become marketable employees as quickly as possible. This focus on our contributions to the workforce rather than our contributions to humanity or our contributions to ourselves does not allow for a true liberal education. Unfortunately, it does not allow us to truly focus on “building a self.” --Evan Miller, Stanford
My personal experience with education was that high school sought to push students towards being college ready, because college was portrayed as the ideal pathway to a future of success and financial prosperity. My high school emphasized college as the only viable step for students to take after high school, but for the purpose of financial and job security, never for increased opportunities to learn, expand one’s mind, or learn how to think for themselves. The aspects that Deresiewicz suggests should comprise an undergraduate liberal arts education were never spoken of when my high school counselors talked about the benefits of a college education. The type of teaching mentioned in the opening line as being the norm for both American and Japanese high schools was certainly the method of learning my high school teachers employed. My teachers taught through memorization and regurgitation, and taught to the test. I agree with Wagner in that the important aspect of an education should be teaching students how to think critically, and use what they learn in a myriad of creative ways. --Azhia Harris, Stanford
Coming from a high school that emphasized transformational learning over transactional experiences, I can personally attest that being able to think for yourself and process knowledge makes more traditional versions of education, such as rote memorization, much easier. For me, Wagner’s quote hits home because I firmly believe it’s true. Having done lots of late night cramming, I understand being able to learn large amounts of specific knowledge for short periods. Over longer periods of time though, that information fades. What doesn’t fade is learning that explains a concept and makes students question their surroundings. It is much easier to learn the complex backbone of a concept and then derive the simple specifics than vice versa. This type of learning, liberal arts in the sense of liberating the mind, not only helps students retain knowledge, but also allows them to expand upon what they learn in the classroom. --Guy Wuollet, Stanford
Having had the experience of moving from an international school to a Japanese high school, I felt that the education in Japan focuses on being accurate and orderly. The exams, including mini-quizzes, regular class exams, and even the entrance examinations for universities, concentrate on how well you memorize the information given to you. Even for subjects such as Japanese Language Arts or History, which may be regarded as the subjects to encourage personal opinions and ideas for further discussion and activities, the study was based on making an accurate output of the information given to you during classes. When related to Deresiewicz's quote, the primary education in Japan focuses on vocational aspects, such as being an obedient member of the workforce in Japanese society. It is common for people to rate universities based on simply calculated numbers of the difficulty of the entrance exams. High school students discover their level or hennsachi (deviation values, or their personal educational ranking) through taking national mock exams, and are told by teachers, tutors and even parents that they should consider their applications based on those statistics. For many of the students, it is not the environment of the university, or the university which fits them best, but what is “believed” to be helpful for attaining a successful vocation, rather than having a broader perspective to seek for the "ability to remain fully human" as Deresiewicz puts it. --Erina Murakami, ICU
Although I lived in New York for 7 years, I don’t think I was really critically thinking during my stay. It may be because I was still in elementary and middle school when the education is more focused on learning the materials. However I definitely developed decision making skills and different ways to express myself. I moved back in Japan for high school and although my high school was pretty liberal compared to other Japanese schools having classes without one single answer to everything and instead of expressing our own ideas through presentations and discussion. However, I’ve never really had the chance to contemplate my education and why I would want to keep learning until college. It had become the “norm” to enter a high school (because high school is not compulsory in Japan—you got to apply like college) that will lead your way into college which will lead your way to an ideal (hopefully) job. I feel like it is just some kind of an ideal road that is set up in front of us and this invisible pressure on us that we have to follow that typical way of life. I don’t really know if that is the case in the States as well, but I think most Japanese students over here don’t have enough opportunities to question the choices we make in our lives. It seems to me that Japanese students are more pressured into studying and cramming knowledge in their brain compared to American students who have more opportunity to express their own ideas through presentations and different choices to express oneself. I think that is the main difference between a Japanese school and an American school even in earlier stages of education, for American schools seem to give more choices and let the students choose what they want instead of instructing students to copy the model. --Chiemi Yoshida, ICU
One of the changes I went through between an international school and a Japanese high school was the differences in examinations. In international schools, the examinations mostly asked for our opinions based on the facts we learned during class, and it helped us to form a concrete opinion about the things that we learned, which I think was also was a good opportunity for us to form a Self. On the other hand, the examinations in Japanese high schools only focused on memorization of the dates and events, and it first made me worry that I wasn’t learning enough compared to my experiences at an international school. Of course, memorizing the information is important, but just to memorize facts and not being able to output the information is inefficient. I believe that being able to use the information we learn (whether it be in an academic situation or not) is the ultimate goal of education, and that process will eventually lead to building a Self. --Kana Ohashi, ICU
Op-Ed Blog Posts on Paul Wadden and John Peterson, Stanford-ICU Exchange Fall 2016
 |
| John Peterson |
 |
| Paul Wadden |
Even engineers—whether designing cars without drivers or products for an aging society—must be creatively and keenly aware of the individuals and the cultures that will use them. As the late Steve Jobs, founder of the company that has had the highest market value in the world, explained: “It is in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough. It’s technology married with the liberal arts.”
Paul Wadden and John Peterson. “Education Proposals the Opposite of Workplace Needs.” The Japan News of the Yomiuri Shimbun, February 3, 2016.
Critical Responses from Students
Technology is constantly advancing and the culture changes within it. To make technology the most useful, we must understand how society and cultures have changed and ways to make it more efficient. But in other words, if we don’t know what humans need, if we lose sight of what is the true human experience, our technologies might become less effective. In some ways, we need the liberal arts to determine the best functionalities for devices and other technologies. For example, online research databases let us search through vast arrays of documents and works; anyone with an Internet connection can access classic texts and other works, etc. Biomimetics, the imitation of the systems and elements of nature, allows us to take science into our everyday lives, solving complex human problems.The iPhone contains apps not only about “technology” but apps that counter more of the “humanities perspective” such as health, music, beauty, etc. The iPhone would not be complete without the different kinds of apps that have been created by people besides “technology” based perspectives.
Apple’s success as a developer of new technologies is unprecedented in the United States. This success, perhaps, can be attributed to the philosophy that Steve Jobs shares in the quote from the passage. The integration of liberal arts in technological innovation allows manufacturers to better understand the needs of consumers and, as a result, create more successful products.
Even if we are non-engineers, we cannot forget technology. Technology is an essential factor in how the world works nowadays, and liberal arts is the study of how minds and cultures work. We need both. As much as some of us at Stanford would love to go our entire Stanford career without ever taking CS106A (the introductory class to Computer Science), computer technology is a fast way to expand our knowledge of East Asia to the world, and design programs for other “foreigners” like some of us, and to learn these complex languages and cultures. When the human brain is not enough to bear the difficulty of language, the human learner reverts to the computer. The computer must be able interact as humans, and humans must know how to operate a computer.
--Co-written by Sonomi Iwashita, Marin Aizawa, Hibiki Honda, Akira Garza, Rina Tamura at ICU and Jose A Gonzalez, Kendra Mysore, Soly Lee, Becky Yang, Maimi Higuchi, Anand Shankar at Stanford
Paul Wadden and John Peterson’s article supports the inclusion and importance of the liberal arts in Japanese education. This quote is cited as a reason why the liberal arts must be supported, in which the “individuals and cultures” connote the liberal arts. It is another reason why the Japanese system should not abolish the liberal arts system, for its versatility in further business and fulfillment of the aim to develop technology.
Japan is undoubtedly among the countries that are in the hub of new technology. It is only natural that its businesses and political groups are interested in pushing this lead even further. However, this seems to have encouraged the mindset that Japan is already in the leading vanguard of technology, so there is no need to change the current education system based on rote memorization. This has been interpreted as a memorization of many scientific facts and a decrease in emphasis on the humanities, precisely the “individuals and cultures”.
In Japan, reverse engineering, a type of technology, was particularly popular and proved an affluent business in the 50s and 60s, but much of this involved imagination and creativity. How do we make this product better for the public? What does the public want? Technology and “individuals and cultures” were indeed tied together.
The main education system in Japan then was clearly not liberal arts, but nor was it a plethora of factual recall. Instead, students had time outside classrooms to think about who they were and where they came from, to investigate any question they wished to choose. In fact, it was an annual assignment over breaks to perform a free investigation in the hopes of gaining a more sophisticated understanding of the self and the world around the self. (Nowadays, it is still an assignment, but the students’ attitudes are different—much more jaded and treated as an insignificant but mandatory assignment because it is overshadowed by the overwhelming number of facts one has to memorize for school.) In a way, the exploring, imaginative, and questioning method these students lived their lives was what could now be called a “liberal arts” style. It was just a matter of whether stimulation of curiosity came from inside or outside the classroom. Then, a liberal arts education may not be completely and absolutely necessary, but it would be one method of encouraging more critical thinking that is so integral to society then and today. Overcoming the educational traditions of so many decades is an arduous long process in which implementation of the liberal arts education is not an easy task.
Yet there are examples that do cross this barrier in unusual ways. For example, the media focused on a particular group of students who, under a teacher who was then described as “eccentric”, learned to delve into anything they found sparked their curiosity and think critically and creatively. Their way of learning was an ideal embodiment of the liberal arts style. While parents were concerned and the school considered ousting the instructor, all of the students in that class passed with not only top grades but also guaranteed entrances into the top national university, The University of Tokyo. The liberal arts form may then not be completely hopeless in Japan. However, this story also shows an alternate way of excelling in Japanese education and meeting academic expectations yet also learning to explore and think critically. The italicized quote above is placed in a context that seems to encourage liberal arts to heavily modify, if not replace, the traditional Japanese system. Either way, the liberal arts system is continually referred as a completely different system from a science/math/technology-heavy Japanese education. There may be a way to merge the two systems, or there may be a common similarity in which liberal arts and the Japanese education system are not radically polar opposites. --Maimi Higuchi, Stanford
Op-Ed Blog Posts on Martha Nussbaum, Stanford-ICU Exchange Fall 2016
 |
| Martha Nussbaum |
Critical Responses from Students
Education in Europe places importance on concentrating on one major, giving students not much chance of studying subjects outside of their majors. The education system in Germany is a good example that shows how early young people have to choose the specific occupation they want to get, since students are forced to choose whether they are going to go to university or college as young as the age of 10. After learning about the education in Europe, I noticed that it is very similar to the one in Japan. In Japan, although young people do not have to think about their majors in elementary school, students are forced to make their decisions in high school. Moreover, most of them decide their majors not based upon what they are interested in, but upon what they can get a better score on. This not only limits the variety of their future occupations, but also their possible interests in other other fields of study. Moreover, Japan is facing a problem of graduates of famous universities not being able to interact and communicate with others, since all of their education has been based on memorization and getting more information in their brains. I believe that this problem also may exist in countries in Europe. This is the reason why both Japan and Europe should start to emphasize liberal arts education. Liberal Arts education not only gives one more time to think about what one wants to do in the future, but also teaches one how to communicate with the others. --Miki Takahashi, ICU
My initial response to this passage was that the education system in Europe is relatively similar to the system in Japan. In Japan, students start specializing early and from around the end of elementary school, we start thinking about whether we’re better in the humanities or the sciences. We officially choose and start taking classes in one of those two tracks in high school. This decision that we make in high school is a very heavy and important one as this determines the college that we will be applying for and our future job career as well. However, this decision is made with minimal information and it is very hard to change once you start taking up classes in that division of knowledge. On the other hand, in the US and Kenya, you don’t have to specialize in high school. All of the students on our side (ICU) went to high schools in Japan so we were all forced to choose either the humanities or the sciences. However, when we were asked by the Stanford students whether we were all sure of which major that we are going to declare, none of us could articulate a response. This shows how the Japanese students are forced to specialize too early and that they should be given more time to consider their options. In addition, Japanese students apply for and take entrance exams for specific majors to get into college. Similarly, in Kenya, you declare your major at the beginning of college and if you want to change it, you need to start all over again. The commonality is that the system does not encourage you to change your major once you are in college. This means students do not have the chance to explore different majors before declaring one and this is probably the reason why some students are not satisfied with the classes that they are taking and consider switching majors. The discussion about this issue made me reconfirm the importance and strengths of a liberal arts education. --Chihiro Obayashi, ICU
I was startled to know that in the US, a medical doctorate takes four years of undergraduate or liberal arts education, plus an additional four years at medical school. Our Stanford counterparts estimated that doctors only start working around the age of 36. In Japan, aspiring doctors enter 6 years of medical university after they graduate high school. Unlike students who advance to other majors such as economics or business, Japanese students who want to study medicine are more determined to become doctors. This is because in many cases their parents are also doctors who want their children to become successful doctors as well, and they have the economic and mental capacity to let their children spend an extra year in specialized study after high school and retake the medical school entrance exams if they fail the first time. They are surrounded from childhood by people who also want to go to medical school because of cram school. However, because their only goal from when they were young was to become accepted in a medical university, they tend to be narrow-minded and unwilling to learn about anything else. Many doctors I have met have medical knowledge but lack the communication skills needed to draw out symptoms from patients and prepare their fragile mental states for their diagnosis or surgery.
Doctors should receive an undergraduate education before medical training, but four years seems too long. Early specialization does offer merit for doctors because unlike other majors, there is so much required to learn. I believe with two years of liberal arts education, doctors will be better equipped for working with patients. In Japan, middle school and high school students who want to be doctors go into the science track and study exclusively for university entrance exams. If they learn and mingle with humanities students, they would come in contact with people who they never would have had a chance to meet. A large part of education comes from speaking with other students, as Jack W. Meiland observes in College Thinking: How to Get the Best Out of College. --Chiharu Nishimoto, ICU
The Stanford-ICU session made me question the university entrance examination system in Japan. In the U.S.A., students submit their GPAs, SAT scores, and essays to get into a university. It is evident American university admissions offices look not only at your grade but also at your personality and motivation. On the contrary, in Japan, nearly all students take an entrance exam held only once a year, which counts for everything. No other factors except exam score are considered. In other words, if you fail the exam, you lose the chance of going to a university. Thus, Japanese students study for a year or more and almost everyone goes to a cram school because the education in high school is not enough. Although they send their GPAs to the university, they are merely for form’s sake. What, I think, is most troubling about it is how Japanese universities only look at the test scores, which forces students to take entrance examinations without an opportunity to rethink the reason for studying at a university. This leads to students skipping and failing classes, which is pretty common in Japan. On the other hand, hearing the story about Kenya, where only half of the students taking the national examination can proceed to higher education and the other half are forced to drop out, I feel that Japanese students should be more aware of how blessed they are to be able to go to a university.
The interaction made me think about how the educational systems in several countries are actually depriving students of the chance to pursue higher education. For example, in Kenya, the score of a single national exam determines a student’s future, and only half the students who take the exam are guaranteed a spot in college. Furthermore, an even smaller percent of students actually get into the “top” majors. Similarly in Japan, even though we have the right to pursue higher education, a lot of students end up in majors they don’t want to pursue because they are forced to choose them at an early age. So in a way, students around the world aren’t guaranteed the right to pursue higher education in an area they actually want to because of the national educational systems. I believe that this is a great problem because college is supposed to be the time to cultivate the Self, and realize who you are. When students are put into specific majors which they have never explored before, there is a chance of the student losing interest in studying itself, and loosing the purpose of life. This is the reason why many Japanese college students cut classes and instead put more emphasis on part-time jobs and “partying.” In this way, college is losing its actual purpose because of the national education system. --Ayumi Taniguchi, ICU, with Prinslou Tare, Sahaj Garg, Xueying Yan and Diwakar Ganesan, Stanford
Op-Ed Blog Post on Michael Ellsberg, Stanford-ICU Exchange Fall 2016
 |
| Michael Ellsberg |
What would education for a successful life look like? You can define a “success” any way you want—wealth; career; family; spirituality; sense of meaning and purpose; vibrant health; service and contribution to community, nation, and humanity—or any combination thereof. What would an education look like that was laser-targeted and cut out all bullshit not directly related to living a happy, successful life and making a powerful contribution to the lives of the people around you? Certainly, this education would look nothing like anything taught on current college campuses…. If you wanted to take this course of study, you’d have to do so on your own, outside of college, as your own teacher, because this course doesn’t exist anywhere within the halls of academia. (9) Michael Ellsberg. The Education of Millionaires, 2011
Critical Responses from Students
Every individual in a society has two types of success, which are communal success and individual success. The current education system in Japan provides support towards communal success, which is to enter a prestigious university and ultimately gain a good job and a stable income. However, it does not provide the tools necessary for individual success. To us, individual success is discovering one’s personal avenue of fulfillment. It is informed by the cultural backgrounds and social circumstances in which each individual was raised and as such is inherently a unique concept. We believe that introducing the liberal arts education system to more universities will provide each individual with more opportunities to pursue this success. Having a liberal arts education enables students to have broader range of knowledge and perspectives compared to other majors. Studying a variety of subjects leads to a wider choice of career as well as getting more opportunities to learn who you yourself is. Through this students are able to critically think thus build their independent values and opinions. --Co-written by Momoka Ikeda, Nana Horiguchi, Kei Yamaguchi, Haruna Deane, Hanako Shirata, Daichi Yamaguchi at ICU and Nick Kingsley, Daniel Henry, Nikki Taylor, Jonathan Gilbert at Stanford
