On having a dialogue

Sometimes reading made me feel bad. For years, I tried so hard to be safe: maintaining GPA carefully, doing my homework carefully, and following teacher's instruction carefully. Now, I feel I am a coward because I am not brave enough to fail, while to fail is sometimes the necessary path to success. The claim made by the author is really challenging. Not all people need to be students who maintain their GPAs carefully without putting themselves out of the comfort zone, thus colleges as a safety net. The point is that we need to challenge ourselves and get some skills out class: "kills like sales, networking, creativity and comfort with failure." Colleges really did a good job in preventing failure: as a undergrat, we have Cr/Non-credit options, we can shop for classes, swap a class, even withdraw. As graduate students, we have supervisors, one or two advisers and mocking tests, etc. Nobody can rescue us in the job market or stock market... Now, I start to believe that to fail is necessary for us to succeed.

Reply to nbnguyen,

Once I was on your side and believed that "At the age of 18, most people, including me, don't know what they want to do with their lives. Hence, they don't know whether they need college degree or not. Hence, going to college in a way is considered a much safer choice and helps them to expose to many areas. " However, after reading this article, I start to think that sometimes, we don't know what to do is because we go to college. The truth is that some people believe that they succeed in a college if they can maintain their GPA above a certain point. In this way, they will not try some courses if they are really hard and their GPA would be spoiled. If students really cares about their performance, they might feel lost sometims because they don't know what they really feel passionate about. They might continue their professional career while the truth is the path is really tough and not for everyone.

It's a good question and I have my own interpretation on it. First, there's one thing for sure: there is no perfect test to evaluate every aspects of one person or his/her achievements. Second, our society, as well as college, does need a method to judge people. At least we need to decide who should be a doctor; who can be a teacher, etc. IN this way, standardized test are designed in order to decide: how well one student can apply the skills he/she learned in high school. It also gives them an objective way to compare with other students. Perhaps the reason why only reading, math and writing are tested is that those skills are essential for one to survive in a college. IT would be hard for one to demonstrate his/her credibility as a intelligent students without getting the ability to write and read according to a college standard. It's important to remember, however, that one's test scores are not the only thing colleges or people use to make their decisions and judgments.

Maya -

This was also a surprise to me. I wasn't expecting the Parkway and Bryn Mawr students to completely agree with one another, let alone the entire classroom. I wonder if this is due to the classes involved being focused on history and education, or if it is widespread among your school (for example, would we have gotten the same result if we had polled, say, a Mathematics class?). I also wonder if people were more likely to say what they thought others would say because they were uncomfortable with strangers, though I didn't get that feeling. Overall I wish we had more time together so that we could really talk deeply about the topics.

I hope all is going well in your studies and I can't wait to see you all again later in the semester,

- Serena

Sarah,

I do see your point about the irony of us college students stating that one doesn't have to attend college to be successful. I suppose I chose to disagree with the statement because I was feeling pessimistic that day. My mom always told me that the higher up the educational ladder I go, the better for my future. But in today's economy we constantly hear about how college students graduate with loads of debt and end up jobless. It's a scary thought but that doesn't mean I'm going to drop out of college. I also believe that luck plays a huge role in the type of success one achieves. And success has varying definitions. My mom had to stop attending her community college because she gave birth to me. The only thing she's got is a high school diploma, and I can see that that doesn't get much for her, so I work hard to get my degree from college and I hope for the best that there'll be a job waiting for me as soon as I step off of Bryn Mawr's campus. And if there isn't one, at least I tried. Staying home and working was not the best option for me.

And sure, you could be an actor or a rapper and not get a college degree but in my opinion, you'd have to be extremely lucky to get a record or film company to notice you. And what is there to fall back on if you're an aspiring actor or rapper and you can't get a deal? I need my college degree because I have no acting or rhyming ability whatsoever...

My roomate says that in her opinion the SAT and standadised test in general test one's ability to avoid being tricked. Why would they give you five similar answers with 3 of them correct in their own right, but you have to take note of the teenest bit of difference to choose the "best" option. I remember the ironic warning "an answer could be true but wrong".  She also said that it is as if education is different from knowledge.One could have a college degree on something without really knowing a lot about it, but rather knowing all the strategies to do it right with little effort. Think about it, college students learn the skill of "skimming" a text and yet they somehow get to write a paper about it and even contribute to class discussions  effortlessly. She also comments on the declining value of our education. I can't help but agree with her, because in my parents generation one could get a good job (not a summer job/internship) straight out of high school. Now a college degree is becoming inadequate and probably in our children's time, they won't be able to achieve anything without a PhD. Ain't that ridiculous? We are spending nearly the first quarter of our lifes getting qualified to live.

I think we should definitely have some sort of a debate because I feel as though a lot of the ideas that Parkway students had were similar (and sometimes different) to what Bryn Mawr students were thinking. I think that if we had a debate it would help further convince us (Bryn Mawr students) on your ideas because I feel as though a lot of the ideas presented by the parkway students were very compelling and interesting. 

I noticed that, as well. It was primarily the college students who were questioning the importance of college. I think that stems from the fact that when you get to university, you begin deciding what most interests you and have more opportunities for exploration. It's quite possible that after having the experience interning at a non-profit or working as a lab assistant, those seven hours spent studying Russian Literature suddenly are not as fulfulling. There's also the possibility that a class could persuede you to major in something most employers are not looking for so that your employment then depends on experience and connections versus your education.

This is not to say, however, that college is unnecessary. It all depends on your individual definition of success, but an undergraduate degree is becoming all but expected in most job markets. This makes college even more important than it was before, as it is now basically impossible to compete for a "better" job without a degree. Graduate school now is really how one has to establish themselves and that requires undergraduate education. Keeping your personal definition of success in mind, though, is the most important thing in considering your post-high school education.

I kind of agree with you about this. SAT only tests on vocabulary, grammar, reading skills, math, and writing. Although those are the basic skills for college, but they cant represent one's intelligence comprehensively. Some people have intelligence on handwork, some others have intelligence on music, still others have intelligence on sport. That are all called intelligence right? Through my experience, I found SAT is more like a stragetic test. There are many strategies you can use. What score you got on SAT also depends on how many times you have taken the test. For me, I got better grades every time than the previous one. So that kind of show the fact that all you need to improve your test score is practicing and that's not related to intelligence.

That is the question? You see its the way our society is structured that makes it appear that you are at mercy's end without a college degree. There are many 'successful' people who are very unhappy. Why do you think they turn to drugs or commit suicide? But with headlines like the 100 most successful men/women and the way advertisements are designed, our minds have been conditioned to define success in terms of a degree/career/lots of money.  I often wonder about this pressure to add a string of titles infront of ones' name. Must i have a PhD? If i get a Bachelor's aint that enough? College does not even guarantee success, otherwise college graduates should not be unemployed. This issue eats at the very hem of societal structures. Like you said, without a piece of paper that says you can do something, you dont get a job, even though you are good at it. I think that's unfair. That is what sent me to college. I was tired of being underated and poorly paid because i was doing what i loved but was not 'certified' in it.

absolutely, well said

Were we asked if standardrized tests are MEANT to test our intelligence and we're all disagreeing because it's not touching all types of intelligence or were we asked if we BELIEVE the ACT is actually testing our intelligence and we're disargreeing because we don't think the test is really testing our intelligence. I think personally I need that clarification because I see many people answering this question like the ACT is suppose to be an intelligence test but it's not doing its job whille I actually think the ACT is even trying to be an intelligence test. Well I would like to first point out that the science subject of the ACT doesn't test one's knowledge in the sciences. It tests one's reasoning skills. Then the english tests one's knowledge of vocab, one's context skills, and one's grammar. The math tests one's knowledge of math. The writing tests one's knowledge of vocab, one's skills for framing an argument, and how one can structure an essay. Overall the ACT tests on how fast you can apply these skills and at what level of efficiency. The real purpose for using this test I believe is for colleges to somewhat 'level the playing field.' An ivy-league school doesn't want a third of the freshman class needing to learn precalc while the rest are taking 2nd level calculus.  Someone with a 35 on the math section probably knows more math than someone with an 8 on the math section EVEN if someone is a really bad test taker...unless they didn't fill out the math section at all. So why would a school that has a student body at a 35 level pick the kid with an 8? The kid with an 8 will most likely not like the college's atmosphere anyways if they have to play catch up right at day one. There some exceptions because college don't just look ACT scores. They look at GPA's which are not all based on test taking skills, and they look at one's essay and one's after school activities.  So based off of those other areas the college may decide that the student is a right fit they might just be bad test takers. But I also believe schools look at the test to identify class. If some has an 18 or below then may not be from an upper class background. People of upper class usually go to the top high schools have the opportunity to get a tutor and because the the ACT is not based on intelligence it's based on how prepared you are to take the test then any one wiht the means to get better prepared are going to get a high test score. I'm actually confused by the question itself. 

That is very true, especially with the current state of the economy. I think that this points out the fact that businesses and people in general equate more education with more experience and qualification for a job. Of course, depending on the type of job a college or even professional degree might be needed (eg - jobs in the medical field). However, for other types of jobs, I disagree with the idea that those with more education have more experience. It reminds me of when I was younger and I was watching Donald Trump's "The Apprentice" TV show when they formed two teams - one of 'book-smart' people (essentially people with business degrees but necessarily experience in business) and one of ‘street-smart’ people (basically people without degrees, but a lot of personal experience in business). I can’t remember if the individual who won was from the ‘book-smart’ or ‘street-smart’ group, but I do recall all of the tensions between the two groups. The ‘book-smart’ people were extraordinarily elitist and believed they were so much better and smarter than those without higher education; whereas, the ‘street-smart’ people took one look at the ‘book-smart’ group and laughed because they “knew” they would be able to do so much more than those with degrees since they already had so much experience in their field. Honestly, even at a young age, I was disgusted by their rejection of another group’s form of education. They all had the same basic knowledge, it was just their mode of obtaining that education that differed.

Getting back to the idea of not needing college to be successful, I think that it implies a couple things about people and society.

1)  Again, what success means is very individualized and college may not help one be successful by their own definition.

2)  Even if one does not go to college, one is still getting an education and is learning – it’s simply different. However, our society seems to devalue this type of education and I think that’s embedded in some very classed ways of thinking and viewing the world.

I think that one of the ways our society could move forward from this way of thinking (education=experience and qualification) would be for businesses to recognize more the value of education outside of the classroom.

Hey Phillis! Thanks for posting. I completely agree with what you have asserted. Stadardized testing (I am thinking of mostly the SAT and ACT) is very limited in the subjects that it tests students on. However, students feel pressured to do well in these areas because colleges accept or deny us based on these scores. Do you think that this system exposes a flaw in the education system, or perhaps a bias in society's view of education? The way the college acceptance process is now values book smarts over street smarts. There is no area on the application that judges how well you can change the oil on a car or calm a fussy baby. This issue provides insight into what skillsets the higher education system values and what our society values. However, who's to say that being book wise is more important than being street smart? Aren't both necessary to feel well-rounded in your education? 

I completely agree with your statement that people don't need college to be successful.  It’s true, someone can go to trade school and still consider themselves successful in life if they are doing what they love (which is what I consider success to be).  However, I think the reason that many people believe that college is necessary for success is because a lot of people don’t know how they want to find the success in their lives.  People who choose to go to trade school know exactly what they want to do, there is a clear path and they follow it.  Even those to drop out of college like Mark Zuckerberg had a vision of what they wanted.  College (and especially a liberal arts college) helps people to find how they will be successful which is one reason so many people find it necessary to attend.