The Apocryphal Ideal Student

At the beginning of this semester we were asked to write a blog post on what we believe an ideal student is.  Originally I wrote about how it is someone who, despite their circumstances, perseveres until they achieve what they want, whether it be to get an A in a class or get their desired degree.  I formerly believed that if someone would take the time needed to study and were willing to ask for help then they could achieve this.  However, after a semester of college my views have changed.

Dictionary.com defines ideal as a standard of perfection or excellence and student as any person who studies, investigates, or examines thoughtfully.  So, if you were to put those two definitions together an ideal student would be something along the lines of the perfect person who studies thoughtfully. This definition doesn’t sit well with me, because I personally believe it is impossible for someone to be perfect.  Someone may strive to be perfect their entire life and just when they think they are there, someone else comes along who is smarter, better, or just more favored.

Also, I have learned through personal experiences that sometimes your best effort isn’t enough.  Each teacher has their individual preferences and you won’t always fit the mold.  You can study your hardest in the most “thoughtful” way and never reach perfection.  You can do all the assignments to the best of your abilities and fulfill all the requirements and more and it still may not be good enough.  This has further increased my belief that perfection is not attainable.

So, to sum this up, I believe that the ideal student depends on what their teacher is looking for.  The work the student may do, despite them giving their best effort, may not be enough to get the A.  So, is there really such a thing as an ideal student if it can be a different thing to every person?  I personally have started to believe that there is no set in stone ideal student.  I’ve learned that you must just be who you are.  Even though your best may not be enough for what one teacher wants, it may be exactly what another is searching for.  You just have to keep trudging on and don’t let one bad grade get to you.  Eventually things will turn around and you will find that class that you will be exceptional at.

Stem Cell Research: The Communication Edition

                Without our thinking domain, no one would hear about stem cell research.  Our domain deals with oral, written, and visual communication.  Any time someone discusses stem cell research, our domain is being used.  Through our thinking domain, millions of people can be reached and informed on the topic.  President Obama giving a speech on the policies on stem cell research is a form of oral communication, as well as someone having a debate on whether stem cell research is moral or not.  A form of written communication used to present information on stem cell research can range from an article in a scientific journal that presents the facts to an opinion based article in a newspaper or magazine stating what someone’s personal views are on the subject to a forwarded email about the pros or cons.  Advertisements on television and the Internet are forms of the visual aspect of this domain.  This form is used the most often because it can reach millions of people at once.  In most cases the advertisements are run more than once, so people are more likely to remember what is being shown to them.  Also, in today’s day and age, we can find virtually anything we may see on television on the Internet.  So, if someone sees an advertisement about stem cell research on the television, but may not have caught the entire thing, they can look it up online and watch it again.  This will also lead them to other links and videos, which will provide them with more information on the topic.

                In order for any information to be presented on stem cell research, our thinking domain must be used.  Communication is an essential part of human life and no one can learn or go forward in without it.  If people want to inform the public about what is going on with stem cell research, they must use communication.  So, in short, without our domain of thinking no one would be able to progress in the world, let alone make a decision on rather stem cell research is in the country’s best interest or not.

Against Gender-Divided Classroom Preliminary Argument

If schools were to become segregated and have classes for just boys and just girls, it would have a couple adverse effects. The social skills between the two sexes would drastically drop. Boys would no longer know how to act appropriately around girls, while girls would not know how to act around boys. The opposite sex would become foreign to them. When they would come in contact with each other, they may act completely shy towards them or take the opposite stance and be too open with them. Either result would be detrimental to society. Also a room full of boys or a room full of girls, just seems to have fight written all over it. Boys are known to be more rowdy and usually deal with their problems with each other through fights. In other words, they "duke it out", then forget about it. Girls on the other hand, are known for being talkers and tend to bicker and verbally fight when they have a problem.

            In either situation, it is unlikely that much will be accomplished when you have either a room full of wrestling boys or a room full of gossiping girls. As stated in an article in Child & Adolescent Mental Health “Children and adolescents exposed to violence may develop mental health problems, impacting their ability to develop appropriate social-emotional skills.  Limited development of social-emotional skills has been associated with poor performance in school,” (Aviles, 2006).  This shows that not only would putting students in such an environment that increases the likelihood of being around various forms of violence be detrimental to their social skills, but it would also affect their academic performance.  This would achieve the opposite of the effect that is desired from gender divided classes.  If separating boys and girls would result in poor social skills and lower academic levels, then why would you do it?

            If you were to keep the classes mixed, I believe a lot more would be accomplished because the boys and girls would equal each other out and they would grow up around each other, so they would know how to act towards the opposite sex.  Also, this would lower the amount of violent situations they would encounter compared to if they were in gender divided classes.  So by increasing the social interactions between the genders and lowering the chances of violent situations arising by keeping classes mixed, it will result in a better learning experience for all.

Aviles, A., Anderson, T., & Davila, E. (2006). Child and Adolescent Social-Emotional Development Within the Context of School. Child & Adolescent Mental Health, 11(1), 32-39. doi:10.1111/j.1475-3588.2005.00365.x.

Girls Are Only Smarter Because They Work Harder?

                In an article titled “Self-Discipline Gives Girls the Edge:  Gender in Self-Discipline, Grades, and Achievement Test Scores” by Angela Duckworth and Martin Seligman I read about how it is believed girls do better in school compared to boys because they have more self-discipline.  The study discusses girls’ grades in major subjects, as well as their scores on academic and IQ tests, and compares those results to the boys’ results.  Girls had higher grades than boys in all subjects, despite scoring lower than the boys on academic and IQ tests.  Duckworth and Seligman go on to discuss how these results appear to show that it is because girls work harder in the classroom.  They achieve higher grades because they put forth more effort than boys, not necessarily because they are more intelligent.  This thought seems to coincide with Dweck’s growth mindset.  Because the girls are willing to try harder, they are able to not only achieve better grades for themselves, but are also able to appear more intelligent than the boys, though test scores show otherwise.

                The authors in this article appear to believe that intelligence is based on a test score.  This in itself is unfair.  I’m sure you all can think of someone who just doesn’t test well, but may be able to solve any complex math equation you throw at them, or maybe they can spout off thousands of historical facts.  Are these people not intelligent?  I tend to disagree with that.  Yes test scores can show how intelligent someone is but there are many other things that factor into it.

                Also, the authors state that girls’ grades are higher because they work harder in the classroom.  That may be true, but the way they word the article makes it seem as if boys don’t try at all.  That is definitely false.  Throughout my years of high school and even my few weeks in college so far, I have found plenty of boys who try extremely hard to excel in the classroom.  I have also seen many girls who don’t try at all.  I believe it all depends on a person’s personality or mindset  Girls and boys are different, but at the same time the same.  You will see both girls and boys on either side of the spectrum, some that really excel, but also some who don’t fare so well.  .  Like I previously stated, it all goes back to having the growth mindset Dweck speaks about and being willing to work hard to achieve the grade you want.

Reference:
Duckworth, A., & Seligman, M. (2006). Self-Discipline Gives Girls the Edge: Gender in Self-Discipline, Grades and Achievement Test Scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 198-208. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.198.

He Said, She Said: Gladwell vs. Dweck

Today I’m going to discuss two well known authors, Malcolm Gladwell and Carol Dweck.  Specifically I will be comparing Gladwell’s book Outliers:  A Story of Success and Dweck’s Mindset:  The New Psychology of Success.  Considering both of these are books on success, you would think that they would have similar view points, right?  Wrong.  Gladwell and Dweck have very different ideas on success.

Gladwell’s Belief

Gladwell views becoming successful as getting a high ranked job and being wealthy.  Those who are successful are those who are given the right opportunities, such as being born at a certain time (Gladwell 15-34, 65-68).  Those who don’t succeed were just the unlucky ones who were given a bad hand.  They weren’t given the same opportunities as the successful ones, so they cannot become successful.  Gladwell never acknowledges failure.  A good example of this is Chris Langan.  Langan was incredibly smart and is known to be the most intelligent person in the world (Gladwell 70-71).  However, even though Langan attended college, he never got a degree.  Here is Gladwell’s reasoning for it:  he grew up in a poor family in a small town (strike one), his mother did not mail in his scholarship renewal form (strike two), the academic advisor and dean refused to grant him a schedule change (strike three) (Gladwell 91-95).  Not once does Gladwell fault Langan.  He states that it is just Langan meeting a series of bad opportunities.  So since Langan wasn’t given the “right” opportunities he can’t be successful, despite how intelligent he is.

Dweck’s Perspective

Dweck’s perspective on success is totally different from Gladwell’s.  She believes it all depends on our mindset.  If we have a growth mindset and allow ourselves to learn from our failures then we can become successful.  We need to recognize our failures and take it as a challenge to try harder.  Having a fixed mindset and playing the blame game, like Gladwell did for Langan, does not achieve anything.  By not accepting responsibility for our errors, we would remain at the same level and not grow to our full potential.  In Mindset, Dweck discussed the study habits and the reactions of two groups of college students after taking a chemistry exam, one with the fixed mindset and one with the growth mindset (Dweck 60-61).  The students with the fixed mindset tended to memorize the information needed for the test and that was all and if they ended up doing poorly on the test they just accepted that they weren’t good at chemistry and didn’t try to do better (Dweck 61).  In other words, like Langan, they didn’t accept responsibility for their errors and didn’t try to improve.  However, the students with the growth mindset studied to learn (Dweck 61).  They would look for themes in the information or look over their mistakes until they understood what they did wrong (Dweck 61).  When those with the growth mindset didn’t do well, they tried harder the next time and continued to keep themselves motivated in the material (Dweck 61).  They didn’t give up.  The students with the growth mindset fit Dweck’s definition of success because they were constantly learning from their mistakes and realizing that they can always improve if they just continue to put forth the effort.  Unlike Gladwell, Dweck believes that no matter what hand you happen to draw if you’re willing to try and work at it then you can succeed at anything, just like the chemistry students who continued to try.

My View

As you can see, people can have completely different views of what success is, even famous authors.  My own view of success varies from these and most likely varies from your own view too.  To me, success is trying your hardest and living your life to your full potential.  But I also believe you aren’t truly successful until you are happy with your life just the way it is.  Whether it be having the career of your dreams or having a family, success is when your life is exactly how you want it.  So do you believe you’re successful?

Success is the Disease of Me: The Thoughts of Malcolm Gladwell

                The quote “Success is the disease of me,” actually comes from Dr. Dweck’s book Mindset.  You would not find this statement in any of Gladwell’s books.  If Gladwell were to see a statement such as this I am certain he would disagree.  Throughout his book Outliers, one point that clearly comes across numerous times is that in order to be happy in life you must be successful.  He definitely does not view success as a disease.  To him, success is the key to happiness.  This may not seem like a bad view, I mean of course everyone wants to be good at something and succeed in life.  However, to be successful in Gladwell’s view you must have a high ranked job and make a good sum of money.  Success to him equals wealth.  Throughout his book, all the “successful” people he discusses are extremely wealthy individuals, such as Bill Gates and Paul Allen founders of Microsoft and J.P. Morgan the founder of General Electric.  According to Gladwell, these three men are all in the top sixty wealthiest men worldwide, according to statistics from 2008.  But just because Gladwell says wealth equals success, is it really true?  Did these three men feel like they were some of the most successful in the world?

I cannot answer that question, but I do believe that there are many other things to consider when you look at what success really is.  Success should be when you are truly happy with where you are in life, whether that be having the job of your dreams or settling down and raising your family.  As long as you are happy with your life and feel that you have lived it to the best of your ability, then I believe you can say you have been successful.  So just keep in mind money isn’t everything and despite Gladwell’s view, you can be successful and completely happy with your life even if you are not a multimillionaire or a major company’s CEO.

Me? A Natural?

All throughout my life I seem to have encountered “naturals” at one thing or another that I have tried to do.  There has always been that one person in my class who just seemed to understand every topic that was brought up right away, without needing it explained.  Then there always was that one person who just picked up a basketball and completely excelled on the court.  I never had such luck.  I have always had to study to do well in my classes and practice extra hard to make it in the sports world.  At times, this really used to frustrate me.  Why should that person be able to be an “expert” without having to put forth much, if any, effort?  How is it fair that he or she gets a pass through life without having to work for it?

However, looking back, I have noticed that those who were viewed as “naturals” were also the ones who had the most pressure on them.  They were expected to always do well because they were the “naturals”.  People seemed to think if you were a “natural” at something then you should always flourish.  They were always expected to make the A’s on tests and make every shot in their basketball games.  They were not supposed to fail and most “naturals” let this popular view affect their views of themselves as well.  If they did happen to get a bad grade on a test or miss a needed basket, they would become more frustrated or upset with themselves and really struggle with accepting that they did mess up and that it is okay.  They would begin doubting their selves and would have trouble moving forward.  They would view themselves as a failure and would most likely give up rather than try to do better on the next test or play harder in the next game.  They were stuck in what Dweck would call the fixed mind set.

As I have gotten older, I have realized that I am glad to not have been a “natural”.  By having to work to achieve what I want, I appreciate it a lot more.  Having to work toward my goals has taught me patience and perseverance.  I have learned that by working to do better at something, you can always improve.  The saying “You only get out of life what you put in,” is definitely true.  The more effort and practice you put into doing something, the better you will become at it.  The more you study the better you will do on your tests.  The more you practice your shot, the greater chance you have of making a basket.  However, you also have to realize, you will mess up from time to time and you have to use those incidents as opportunities to improve.  You have to realize in those cases that you can always practice more and no matter how good you may be, you can always do better.  So actually I consider myself pretty lucky to not be a “natural” at something.