Post by nathanjohnson on Aug 2, 2011 16:37:04 GMT -5
I have always felt as though I grew up in a successful environment. My school was well-performing, my peers were good students, and my athletic teams were all successful. But, at the same time, I have also felt that, perhaps, those around me were spreading themselves too thin. Did we all really need to be involved in every sport, every AP class and every club? David Brooks’ “The Organization Kid” sheds some light on the subject of today’s “meritocratic” elite, as he says. He discusses the youth that do every, enjoy everything, are involved in everything and are generally happy. However, he argues, these children are not the way they should be – the youth of today have lost their moral compasses and are not being instilled with the correct moralities and values that the children of the past have been. Perhaps we shouldn’t have our children be the best that they can be, because they’re losing sight of their goals in life.
Wait, what?
First of all, I find it laughable that someone is complaining about the high performance of today’s youth. Secondly, Brooks lays much of the blame in this on the baby-boomer parents who are raising these kids. I’m a little more than worried that adults of today are concerned with how high-performing their children are.
First of all, let’s look at this “lack” of morality and goal-setting which Brooks believes to be present in today’s society. He cites the Princeton of the first decade of the 1900s, in which then-President of Princeton discusses how Princeton guided young men to be the best they could be. Brooks then criticizes modern parents and schools for not doing this, and sums it all up by blaming it on the free-roam rebellious generations of the seventies for doing this. But he also mentions the fact that, back then, there was one social code and it was often led by the idea of “Social Darwinism.” Yet this moral code involved sexism, anti-semitism, racism and glorification of the aristocratic class. The reason we do not need to teach our children one, straight-forward moral code is because there is no one, straight-forward moral code. The moralities and ethics of every person are for that person to decide, and perhaps the reason we have this successful generation on our hands is because this generation has had the ability to decide success for themselves, and in their own eyes. Simply because they had not yet decided on their moral feelings in college did not mean that they were soulless and without character – they were just continuing the path on finding out what those things meant to them. As Brooks stated early on, they were on an academic journey. And it was going to last their lifetime.
Secondly, let’s reject the idea that parenting has put our children on this constantly-winning path. While parenting does play a major role, the fact of the matter is that college admissions councilors are the ones setting standards by which these children need to define themselves. Every year, high school Valedictorians and students with perfect ACT/SAT scores are rejected from Ivy League schools. Why? They are certainly academic. They’ve certainly put effort into their education. Why aren’t they being admitted? Because the admissions advisors have decided that being academic is no longer enough. If you want to give these children time to look for their moral compass, then stop telling them that they have to have a 36 ACT, 2400 SAT, 5’s on all their AP Score, 800 on all their SAT2’s, be the President of 2 clubs, be involved in at least on community service project, and play at least two varsity sports. Our parents have not (in all cases) decided that they want us to do this; instead, colleges have told us that we need to do this. If you want to free up our time for soul-searching, Mr. Brooks, I suggest that you stop pressuring me to be the best that I can be. It’s hard to figure myself out when I’m knee-deep in AP Lang homework.
Wait, what?
First of all, I find it laughable that someone is complaining about the high performance of today’s youth. Secondly, Brooks lays much of the blame in this on the baby-boomer parents who are raising these kids. I’m a little more than worried that adults of today are concerned with how high-performing their children are.
First of all, let’s look at this “lack” of morality and goal-setting which Brooks believes to be present in today’s society. He cites the Princeton of the first decade of the 1900s, in which then-President of Princeton discusses how Princeton guided young men to be the best they could be. Brooks then criticizes modern parents and schools for not doing this, and sums it all up by blaming it on the free-roam rebellious generations of the seventies for doing this. But he also mentions the fact that, back then, there was one social code and it was often led by the idea of “Social Darwinism.” Yet this moral code involved sexism, anti-semitism, racism and glorification of the aristocratic class. The reason we do not need to teach our children one, straight-forward moral code is because there is no one, straight-forward moral code. The moralities and ethics of every person are for that person to decide, and perhaps the reason we have this successful generation on our hands is because this generation has had the ability to decide success for themselves, and in their own eyes. Simply because they had not yet decided on their moral feelings in college did not mean that they were soulless and without character – they were just continuing the path on finding out what those things meant to them. As Brooks stated early on, they were on an academic journey. And it was going to last their lifetime.
Secondly, let’s reject the idea that parenting has put our children on this constantly-winning path. While parenting does play a major role, the fact of the matter is that college admissions councilors are the ones setting standards by which these children need to define themselves. Every year, high school Valedictorians and students with perfect ACT/SAT scores are rejected from Ivy League schools. Why? They are certainly academic. They’ve certainly put effort into their education. Why aren’t they being admitted? Because the admissions advisors have decided that being academic is no longer enough. If you want to give these children time to look for their moral compass, then stop telling them that they have to have a 36 ACT, 2400 SAT, 5’s on all their AP Score, 800 on all their SAT2’s, be the President of 2 clubs, be involved in at least on community service project, and play at least two varsity sports. Our parents have not (in all cases) decided that they want us to do this; instead, colleges have told us that we need to do this. If you want to free up our time for soul-searching, Mr. Brooks, I suggest that you stop pressuring me to be the best that I can be. It’s hard to figure myself out when I’m knee-deep in AP Lang homework.