I've been working too much on human behaviour and its evolution, so I decided to a look another topic : education. I actually have a couple of posts about suicidal behaviour and evolution of emotions that I've been preparing for the last month, and according to my schedule it should be posted today, but I choose to push it a couple of weeks, just to get my mind clear and be in a better shape to write about something more serious.
So, I got this idea from watching some videos on YouTube about a discussion between two contrast groups, such as atheists and religious people, flat-earthers and scientists (lol this one is absolutely gold, you have to watch it), or pro- and anti-vaccines from channel "Jubilee". Link here. However, the videos that got me thinking is the discussion between Ivy League and community college students, and between straight-A and flunking students. If you need some background knowledge about what are Ivy League or community college, please take your time to google it first, it will be much better to understand this topic. Basically Ivy League is a group of most prestigious universities in the United States, that require you to have a really good achievements (and a lot of money), and community college is schools that many have "open enrolment", and more "accessible" to public. However, I don't have a lot of knowledge about the United States' education system, so feel free to correct me.
But for an easier grasp, just think it's a comparison between the best universities and a general ones. The situation is fairly different in each countries. For example, here where I am doing my bachelor in Germany, not a lot of people comparing the education quality between "top" universities and smaller ones. People are more interested in what are you studying, rather than where. However, if you are from United States or some developing countries, as most of my readers are, you definitely know how does it feel to be compared between unis. If we want to discuss about the differences, it would take ages. What I want to talk about in this post is more on the achievement of the students in high school, because that is what it takes to be accepted in these prestigious universities.
So, I got this idea from watching some videos on YouTube about a discussion between two contrast groups, such as atheists and religious people, flat-earthers and scientists (lol this one is absolutely gold, you have to watch it), or pro- and anti-vaccines from channel "Jubilee". Link here. However, the videos that got me thinking is the discussion between Ivy League and community college students, and between straight-A and flunking students. If you need some background knowledge about what are Ivy League or community college, please take your time to google it first, it will be much better to understand this topic. Basically Ivy League is a group of most prestigious universities in the United States, that require you to have a really good achievements (and a lot of money), and community college is schools that many have "open enrolment", and more "accessible" to public. However, I don't have a lot of knowledge about the United States' education system, so feel free to correct me.
But for an easier grasp, just think it's a comparison between the best universities and a general ones. The situation is fairly different in each countries. For example, here where I am doing my bachelor in Germany, not a lot of people comparing the education quality between "top" universities and smaller ones. People are more interested in what are you studying, rather than where. However, if you are from United States or some developing countries, as most of my readers are, you definitely know how does it feel to be compared between unis. If we want to discuss about the differences, it would take ages. What I want to talk about in this post is more on the achievement of the students in high school, because that is what it takes to be accepted in these prestigious universities.
Do Your Grades Reflect Who You Actually Are?
This question is really hard to answer. There are people who say grades are just numbers that do not define anyone, but some also say it shows the quality inside yourself. Let's take a deeper look. Forget about university students, we are focusing on high-school students. Why? This is where my view become important.
High-school is a compulsory form of education in most countries. In Indonesia, where I come from, you basically only have two choices : a normal high-school, where you can study science and/or social subjects, or a specialised school, such as culinary, music, or automotive. We are focusing on the normal high-school right now, since most of the "quality" of the students are defined by grades, not by practical activities.
These grades are becoming really important in term of university application, because students that have better grades are preferable to get into unis without tests. Of course there are a lot of factors come in play, such as the school quality, where you live, and so on. But most of high-school students always want to get into their dream unis without tests, so they have to push hard during their period in high-school to get the best grades possible.
(I admit, in my opinion the current selection system for public universities in my home country is seriously flawed, but I do not want to discuss it in this post. )
However, there are two common comments about grades among the society that irritate me. First, "you don't need good grades, they are just number." Okay I understand why there are people who think so, they think practical abilities, social life, and so on are more important than the grades itself. That could be true, but does it apply to everyone? I'm not disagreeing that practical skills and social life are important; they are indeed important; but for some people, grades are as important if not more than mentioned aspects.
The problem is some people use this comment to defend themselves from the fact that they are not getting good grades; they are in denial, they don't want to admit that they can't be the A-students for some reasons, so they use this critique as a self-defence. This point of view becomes so wide-spread and toxic in the society, until the point that the students that are striving to get good grades could be effected. People think that these kind of students only care about themselves, prioritising themselves above the people around them. Hey, what's wrong with that?
"Not Everyone Wants To Be Scientist or Engineer"
Yes, I totally agree with that. You want to be a musician, an athlete, or a cook, so you don't need calculus or taxonomy. However, what comes after the sentence is the second reason that irritates me, "Why do we have to learn all these things?" The same pattern as the first one, some people use this reason not because they feel that it is useless, but it is because they are not able to understand them. If you have given efforts and you fail, I respect you a lot, that is the process of learning. What I found stupid is some people don't even try. They ignore them with the reason "it is not important" and when they fail the test, they blame everything else : the teacher, the subjects, or even the questions.
In high-school level, I personally believe that if you give some effort, you could at least reach the passing grade. "But passing grade is not enough!" but you said that grades are not important, right? You don't need those A or B+ if you don't want to continue education in academic routes. There is a famous "90-10 rule" that says "10 percent of your activities will account for 90 percent of your results," and it is totally true for this situation. Rather than procrastinating and complaining about "oUr UnFAiR EdUcaTIoN sYsTEm," why don't you spend 10% of your time to learn? Then, you are free to pursuit anything you want. Play skateboard, cook, practice piano, anything.
This is where the title comes to play. These A-students, they don't stop after that 10% time. They use the rest of their time to pursuit perfection, because they want and/or need it. People sometimes don't realise that they give 10 times effort than any other students to reach their dreams, and see them as nerds who don't or can't socialise in the society without no life or hobbies. People just don't acknowledge that getting those achievements are just as hard if not harder than starting a new hobby or having a perfect circle in the society.
A Better Way To Judge Students
Again, I'm not saying that these other aspects beside getting good grades are not important; they are and might be useful along our career in the future. What I ask is just give some respect to everyone, especially students. Let them play with their life, trying new things, developing new hobbies, learn new subjects. And if they decided that getting good grades is what they think they need or want to reach their desired career path, let them pursuit it. If they decided to do something else beside academic routes, motivate them, without the need to a certain students are better or worse than the others.
They are definitely a lot room to improve in our education system, but one thing certain that we could not afford to do is demotivate our students. Shaping a certain stigma in the society is one of the most dangerous think happening to our future generation. Provide facts and show the reality, you could help a certain group of students without saying the opposing group has no future, because this is what I sometimes feel. Saying "grades are just numbers" kills the motivation of straight-A students, and saying "grades are the only thing matter" kills the learning process of creative students, who want to pursuit subjects outside school.
Give our students a fairer treatment, give them same opportunity to grow, and one thing that everyone has to agree on : respect others' choices is the middle ground of living together, and making sure everyone has the same chance to be a better person.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNice article! I can relate with both sides hehe. I think this topic will always be an ongoing debate between students heheh..
ReplyDeleteAnyway, talking about your thoughts on certain people who blames others beside themselves on their 'failure'... it is called locus of control external. It's a psychological term (being my major, i know a bit about that eheh).
It's the psychological term that explains people who blame his failure on outside themselves (luck, task difficulty, other people, etc). I figured you can guess what LoC internal means..
One thing that you might find interesting is that according to some studies, LoC internal is a better predictor for academic achievement after the ability itself.
So...ability is important, but your perception on who you think is responsible for your failure (or your success) is important too.
I thought it might expand the horizon about this whole topic about straight-A students.. and how most of the people can actually have an opportunity be a straight-A student if they (for once) change their mindset :)
Just want to share some perspective about your article from psychology perspective. Given that i'm taking educational psychology this semester, this article really stands out and i can't help but share one of my insights taken from the course :)
deleted one comment because it's the same comment like the comment above
DeleteThank you for the reply! So what you said : confidence plays a bigger role than the ability itself? It would make sense though, since students with good grades always think "I am good with this" so they succeed. However, can someone create a motivation without some past experience? I mean, students who already got the motivation obv. had an experience of getting good grades, so they continue the trend. Could we change a mindset without some "motivation"?
DeleteNot necessarily a bigger role, i would say confidence (or self-efficacy:believing that you are indeed capable) deserves at least 2nd place after ability if not higher.
DeleteWell social comparison is one pretty good motivation though. You compare yourself to other people and that inspires you to be as good (or even better) than them. That source of motivation is even higher if you compare yourself to your friends that have similarities in terms of ability of anything related to your goal. Because if you compare your 1 day self-development to someone else's 1000 days of self-development you can get pretty discouraged.
So it's important for us to compare ourselves with someone within our current ability :)
If you are interested about this whole motivation theories, you can check Bandura's Self-Efficacy Theory. He is one of many recent psychologist that talks about motivation.