She feels as if she's not being listened to, as if John

isn't taking her seriously and becomes incredibly

upset and angry (which is, ironically, what he says

she is at the beginning with: "I'll tell you why. I think

you're angry.") with his approach to education. She

misunderstands him many times, believing that he

is telling her his goal is to "make her mad" when he

tells her," that's my job [to provoke you], don't you

know?". She believes he's exploitative and views

students' struggles as "a joke".

what education has become - mere regurgitation of the 

facts - has become unsatisfactory and that it is wrong that 

everyone has the right to get into higher education if they 

are not going to take it seriously, or if they do not have  

the capability to make worth of the system. He likes to 

encourage students to think for themselves, telling Carol 

that his job is to "provoke her" - when she asks "To make 

me mad is your job?", he replies with "To force you to..." 

but never gets to finish because of Carol's further 

demands. It's quite obvious, given his views already stated,

that he was going to say something along the lines of "To 

force you to think for yourself/think on your own." or 

something to that degree.

taking refuge in perfect note-taking

as opposed to actually thinking

about what it is she's writing down. She

craves certainty, and with John's style of

teaching, she's not likely to get any solid

facts. She seems to have a fascination for

being factually correct; she expresses her

diligent note-taking many times throughout

the play, saying "I sit in class - I take notes!"

and then later, in John's office when he is

attempting to start the course over: "I want

to know everything that went on.". She also

confesses that she wants to "remember it",

which alludes to later on in the play when she

reveals she's been taking notes of everything

that John does (for example, the "flirtation"), not

just from his lessons.

that he feels he is good at what he does. Whether

this is true or not, nobody will ever know - the play

doesn't show anything that's actually necessary to

make a judgement (scenes from the classroom,

John teaching one-to-one, interactions with other

students outside of his classes - whether he is 

respectful or not - , etc). John knows that his style is

"unorthodox" but he genuinely feels it will be better for

his students to actually think about what is going

on in their classes rather than just copying from 

the board or a textbook. John appears to look down

on Carol at the beginning of the play because of her

lack of ability to think; she has no sense of discretion,

only using words from a textbook to feel validated.

However, when he comes to realise that he has more

in common than her than he thought, he becomes

increasingly warm, which leads to misinterpretations.

for idiots. By idiots. They're not a

test of your worth. They're a test

of your ability to retain and spout

back misinformation. Of course

you'd fail them. They're nonsense."

- John

attend college (university). She tells John she is "from a different

social... [class].", "... a different economic... [class].", which he promptly dismisses

as some kind of excuse, telling her that "everybody has problems.".

John is of higher significance in terms of hierarchy in the system, being

middle class. It's assumed he's well off in terms of wage and position in the

community. It's stated that he's been teaching for twenty years (this is

said anyway, but Carol later says: "You've worked twenty years for the right

to insult me.") and he's being considered for being granted tenure. Carol

apparently feels that it's not deserved. 'Apparently'.

that take place during Oleanna. Such a comment can be taken in a

variety of ways in order to suit any exam question regarding the topic

of education or knowledge, respectively.

For example, in Act 1, John is in control. He exerts control over Carol

through his advanced vocabulary and more developed way of

thinking. He withholds knowledge as well, for when Carol asks him:

"What do you think?", he answers the question with another question,

"Should all kids go to college, why?" - by doing this, it can be

interpreted two ways: either John is keeping knowledge for himself on

purpose, wanting to be able to hold the floor with more ease than he

would be able to if Carol knew of his opinions, or he is prompting Carol

to think for herself. She is concise in her reply ("To learn.") which again

shows the difference in their methods of learning. Carol very much

strives for black-and-white answers while John appreciates the bigger picture,

talking in terms of consequence and how events unfold to shape and change 

the future (he often uses the male pronoun "he" when talking in terms of examples; some

find this to be a hint of sexism. Another way it could be interpreted is John's

personal upbringing - by context, when John went to 'college', it was very much a privilege

for the rich and the majority of university-goers were white, male citizens - because

they worked to provide themselves with a source of income, meaning they could go

on to further education, whereas women often stayed home and weren't recognised

as intellectually equal to men. "He" could just be what John is used to, since, when he went

to university, the majority of his peers were males themselves - meaning it was not an attempt

to alienate other students.). John himself has witnessed a lot of change in the education 

system, living through the time when it was just "his kind" attending (whereas in Carol's time, 

university is much more open to females, ethnic minorities, etc). Perhaps he is more

accustomed to 'old methods' of speaking because that's the way he was brought up. However,

he recognises flaws within his old system so promotes new and idealistic ways in which 

university can move forward to ensure it is inclusive of everyone who deserves - works hard - to be there.

opinion on her is that she is dense and not suited to

be in John's course (and despite her changes, perhaps

he was right anyway). By Act 2, it is revealed that she's

quite a lot more knowledgeable than she let on

in Act 1, appearance revised, language developed, and 

is ready to attack John's method because she doesn't 

agree with it. In Act 3, she gains further power, giving

John the cruel ultimatum between his life as a teacher (she

tells him, "What if it were possible my group withdraws its

complaint?" to which John looks disoriented and confused) 

and the inclusion of his book as a representative example 

of the university. She also hosts power over John in that he

doesn't know about the rape allegations she has put against

him, only to find out on the phone with her in the room. She

withholds that information, most likely assuming he already

knows (because he was at the hotel when he should have

received the call) and isn't allowing debate about it. She wants

him to accept his consequences as she wants him to accept

his "actions".

control over Carol by speaking in terms that she cannot

understand without physically asking him. Perhaps he enjoys

that sense of control and further knowledge - or perhaps he

just doesn't realise he's doing it; after all, he does say to Carol

later on that he hated the notion of teaching when he was young,

"the notion of 'I know and you do not.' - so maybe it's not intentional.

By Act 2, John is uncomfortable. He describes himself as feeling

"hurt" when discussing her allegations, and seems genuinely

surprised when Carol says, "I don't care what you think.", him

responding "You don't?!", slight shock evident (in Mamet's 1994

film version), before he adds, "Yet you talk about rights?" - John is

most likely trying to deal with Carol's complaints, not understanding

why she is so upset with the things that he said. Come Act 3, John is

disheveled, obviously having given up. Carol meets him one last time

and he greets her with "I can't help but feel you are owed an apology.

I have read... and re-read these accusations..."; perhaps he finally

found flaw in his behaviour - and it probably would have gone pleasantly

(as it possibly could have) had Carol not argued against the word 

"accusations". His appearance, in comparison to Carol, is messy and

unruly, a direct contrast to Acts 1 and 2. Another notable thing that he

does is resort to curse words. When his temper catches him up, he

shouts at Carol to, "Get the fuck out of my office." - though there is no

italics, there is an obvious stress on the offending word in his speech in

the film adaptation. Perhaps swearing was an act that was chosen

deliberately because it's usually associated with a lack of intelligence

or intellect.