Post by jacobwinkler on Aug 9, 2011 17:03:19 GMT -5
David Brook's article "The Organization Kid" paints an eerily accurate picture of what I've always imagined Ivy League schools to be like. Kids spending every hour of their day while sober and awake working, and the rest of the day night vanquishing their sobriety. At one point, I even thought that life was what I wanted. When the Dalai Lama was asked what surprised him most in life, this was his response, "Man, because he sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then he dies having never really lived." which epitomizes the life in which the majority of these Ivy League scholars seem to live.
Within the article Brook's talks about the Princeton students lack of rebel spirit with authority. He mentions how rare it is for a student to stand up to or disagree with their professors or any body of authority at all. They all play by the rules, and allegedly "They're not trying to buck the system; they're trying to climb it," which conveys a sense of pure obedience and a lack of innovation. Brook's then continues to discuss a conversation he and Aaron Friedberg, who teaches international relations, had. In their discussion Friedberg states, "It's very rare to get a student to challenge anything or to take a position that's counter to what the professor says." One of the major complaints of Princeton faculty is how comfortable students are with authority, and how eager they are to conform. I could not agree more with their complaints. The mentality these students have is almost tantamount to slavery, with a kind of Stockholm Syndrome twist added in. If attitudes such as this remain within society, and even worse, within the people who hold the key to changing society, the world will devolve into a global totalitarian society where everyone simply does what they're told.
The major underlying issue with these students is defined quite clearly in the article. Kids today are so used to having very structured and very organized lives created for them by their schools, parents, and extracurricular organizations that when they are tossed out into college, they are very overwhelmed and cannot handle the chaos. And once they get to college, the faculty present "do not go to great lengths to build character," which in turn pumps out the forever obedient hard working graduates every year. While I do strongly agree with Brooks here, I strongly disagree with the notion that our generation lacks or is indifferent to character and moral rectitude, simply because we are lacking a strong religious backing. While not explicitly stated, our lack of religion being an issue is strongly implied. I on the other hand, feel directly opposed to this idea, and would even reverse it, with the idea that religion is just another organized institution which fills individuals with a set moral guidelines. While these guidelines seem open to interpretation, many of them are blatantly prejudice against groups of people, and indisputably irrational.
Within the article Brook's talks about the Princeton students lack of rebel spirit with authority. He mentions how rare it is for a student to stand up to or disagree with their professors or any body of authority at all. They all play by the rules, and allegedly "They're not trying to buck the system; they're trying to climb it," which conveys a sense of pure obedience and a lack of innovation. Brook's then continues to discuss a conversation he and Aaron Friedberg, who teaches international relations, had. In their discussion Friedberg states, "It's very rare to get a student to challenge anything or to take a position that's counter to what the professor says." One of the major complaints of Princeton faculty is how comfortable students are with authority, and how eager they are to conform. I could not agree more with their complaints. The mentality these students have is almost tantamount to slavery, with a kind of Stockholm Syndrome twist added in. If attitudes such as this remain within society, and even worse, within the people who hold the key to changing society, the world will devolve into a global totalitarian society where everyone simply does what they're told.
The major underlying issue with these students is defined quite clearly in the article. Kids today are so used to having very structured and very organized lives created for them by their schools, parents, and extracurricular organizations that when they are tossed out into college, they are very overwhelmed and cannot handle the chaos. And once they get to college, the faculty present "do not go to great lengths to build character," which in turn pumps out the forever obedient hard working graduates every year. While I do strongly agree with Brooks here, I strongly disagree with the notion that our generation lacks or is indifferent to character and moral rectitude, simply because we are lacking a strong religious backing. While not explicitly stated, our lack of religion being an issue is strongly implied. I on the other hand, feel directly opposed to this idea, and would even reverse it, with the idea that religion is just another organized institution which fills individuals with a set moral guidelines. While these guidelines seem open to interpretation, many of them are blatantly prejudice against groups of people, and indisputably irrational.