The Influencial College Social Life

From bloggingheads.tv the topic of the university industrial complex was discussed by William Deresiewicz of Yale University and Mark Edmundson from the University of Virginia. Both of these professors touched on the subject of what colleges and universities really stand for in this day and age. A classmate, Stephen Sales, gave a response to this discussion highlighting the difference of “leaders and thinkers”, two classifications of people that were discussed by Deresiewicz and Edmundson. Also, based on the title, “Schools need a personal touch” and throughout the essay, he believes that schools need to be more personal in their education to produce the best well rounded student. While some of Sales arguments pertaining to “leaders and thinkers” are well developed arguments, the aspect of a personalized education producing great students is a topic in which I disagree with.

First mentioned by Sales were the qualities of leaders and thinkers. The qualities of leaders, which are people who “insert themselves into the institution… and keep it running” and thinkers, those who “challenge everything and do not go along with the system” should, as voiced by Sales, be put together. I agree that any individual who wants to be successful needs to be able to identify with both leaders and thinkers and create a balance which is beneficial to that individual’s needs and aspirations. I also agree with my colleague in that extremes of leaders and thinkers, or the extreme of anything for that matter, can be detrimental. If an individual can master both characteristics, there is so much more potential for that person to succeed and continue growing.

Also, my peer asked “how colleges promote a mix between the [leaders and thinkers ideals] ”. The solution offered was that the teachers should pay more attention to their students. Based on how much of my day is spent in the classroom, teachers could potentially have little to no effect on how I shape my opinions. And even if I spend more time with a teacher does not mean I will be more inspired or better educated. Of course, I do not mean to say less of a personalized education is unbeneficial to creating a well rounded student, I’m just saying there is much more too it than that.

For example, the college social life is a huge topic that should be looked at, not just the actual academia of the college itself. Has every human only learned what they know from their teacher? There are other factors during college life that shapes students and those factors should be used to the universities advantage. If the university wants to promote a certain ideal, sponsor clubs that promote that ideal, provide benefits and scholarship for student activism. Incentives need to be given inside and outside the institution in order for there to be a place of well educated students.

The cultivation of ideas is key in education. Teachers sometimes only have 50 minutes three times a week to do that. It is hard so shape a student, leader or thinker in that amount of time. The question doesn’t lay inside the universities academics, but the social activities that its students participate in as well.

That being said leads me to next topic of discussion from Sales. When mentioning the big questions which are, what is the good life and what is a good society, Sales said that it “should be” the institution’s responsibility to ask these questions, agreeing with what Deresiewicz and Edmundson had said. As mentioned by Sales, “if people are going to be successful they need to have their own understanding of success and not let society tell them what it is”, because it would result in people becoming “robots and obeying every command”.

While I agree with the concept, I do not think that institutions are the only place for people to discover what they believe and what success is defined as. I actually find it perplexing that in order to become less mainstream and “robotic” teenagers have to participate in the most mainstream event of life by actually going to college, what lots of people robotically do, in order to learn how to become less robotic. It is contradictory of itself. Thinkers and leaders are born and taught to be thinkers and leaders by family members, peers, coaches, elementary teachers, etc. People are influenced by these individuals way before they even reach college. The socialization of: What is the good life and what is the good society are, I believe, achieved before most students enter any type of university.

That being said, the question then should be raised is why do people go to college? Do they really want to be asked these questions or have they been asked these questions and are seeking answers? College and Universities are the institutions that provide people with the ability to think. Getting a degree essentially proves that you can think, analyze and are competent and responsible enough to be given a task and complete it. Sure universities want to make money off of their alumni to help build better facilities and create more programs, but they want a good record in terms of actual education as well.

Having a relationship with a teacher, just one teacher can be one of the most rewarding and life changing experiences for a student. A personalized touch can be extremely important in any education, but asking what is the good life, and what is a good society and learning one on one do not always constitute the person’s ability to discover what is really right. There are so many outside motivating factors influencing a person that education serves only to stand as one form of socialization.