Forma2Plus: NlArticles

Modifier article

Informations

Article *

Niveau *

Editeur

Thème *

Mois du newsletter *

Journaliste

Origine

Fichier vidéos

Texte

LIFEDoes College Still Prepare Students For Real Life?

ByLuke SolowayPublished2 days ago
A college student studying.Photo by George Dolgikh on Pexels.
Why Is Healthcare Expensive?

Watch this video on YouTube
The writer Michel de Montaigne, in the 1500s, once wrote that he only studied that which instructed him “how to die well and how to live well.” Morbid “dying well” bit aside, do modern colleges help their students to “live well”? And is it fair to interchange “living well” with functioning well in society? If it is fair (even if it’s a drag), here are three ways colleges fail students. Especially when it comes to learning how to grapple with real-world challenges. Does college still prepare students for real life?

Encouraging egocentric fallacy
Egocentric fallacy is the (false) perception that you are the center of the universe; the idea that Galileo was wrong, that the earth does not revolve around the sun, but, instead, revolves around you. This is a fallacy, and the real world demands we understand it and act accordingly. The college experience is supposed to be a horizon-broadening journey. A safe place to garner independence, responsibility, and maturity. College should expose students to a variety of people, points of view, and ideas. It was a journey into the unknown. Students should approach higher education with a sense of humility and a hunger for knowledge. Today, colleges often fall short of this vision.

Today’s college student’s mission is the fight for change rather than the struggle to adapt to the post-graduation world.  Today’s college students focus on the fight for justice. And we should fight for justice. Additionally, we should note today’s youth behave very admirably when they fight. For example, they fight for inclusivity and to destigmatize issues surrounding mental health. But, noble as that fight is, we mislead today’s college students, who arrive at college as children. They believe they already know everything. And that they must educate their elders (i.e., educators). When in reality, it is the other way around. This exacerbates and reinforces the false belief that the purpose of college is for the immature to improve the culture. First at the university level and then in the world at large.

Does college prepare students for real life?
It is true that young people will always have powerful insight to impart by virtue of real-world inexperience. It is also true that older generations generally have the wisdom to impart by virtue of their empirical experiences. Permitting college students to silence dissenting voices robs them of the chance to become resilient adults. The same goes if they drop “upsetting” courses and label anything they find uncomfortable with the name “triggering.”

Colleges should draw a line between literal and conceptual violence; we must not tolerate the former. But, the world abounds with unpleasant ideas and people. We only cripple students when we don’t acknowledge that there is often a difficult gap between idealism and reality. We must often tolerate this difference, at least partially, in hopes of having a chance to bridge that gap.

Teenagers telling their professors how to teach is like a doughy couch potato telling their trainer how to exercise. When we combat distress by trying to eliminate it from life entirely, we fail at the attempt. Students cannot erase all distress from life – they cannot “cancel” its existence —such that it goes away. Colleges can, however, inhibit students’ capacity for distress tolerance. That individual inability to tolerate distress then becomes a national inability when today’s students become tomorrow’s adults. It is not intolerance to distress that changes the world, but rather distress tolerance; its opposite, “standing the heat” long enough to put out the fire.

Devaluing engagement
College should be the place to learn to conceptualize well. But theory is only one part of life; day-to-day social interactions and functioning in the world of actions requires a large degree of flexibility from us. Flexibility doesn’t mean accepting wrongdoing but, instead, learning how to gracefully confront less-than-ideal scenarios. Change requires patience; lasting change requires peace. Unfairly low wages are upsetting. Especially when compensation has not reflected productivity or cost-of-living increases.

According to a 2020 job-seeker survey, 77% of college seniors say compensation is their top priority for entry-level positions. It seems like they put the cart before the horse. We should aim high. However, this is a change from the more common view that we shouldn’t dictate compensation in our first job. Being picky about what caliber job we accept is another matter. Traditionally, incomers seek to distinguish themselves through high-quality work and then make compensation demands.

In life, we come into contact with all types – those with good, bad, and unclear intentions. Colleges that don’t instill the social competency to navigate differing ideas fail in their responsibility to create resilient adults. Colleges should not only teach theories but theories in motion. Theories which help us deal effectively with the people we need to deal with… that is, those who do not tolerate our theories (I think I just gave myself a headache).

Calling laziness bravery
Does college still prepare students for real life? When university administrations place prohibitions on behaviors that fall short of causing physical harm and refuse to tolerate words that are more provocative or irritating than hateful,  they do more than simply limit their students’ ability to build distress tolerance. They tempt students into mistaking laziness for bravery. Students should not be taught to believe that any discourse which causes discomfort is “hateful,” nor should they be taught that uncomfortable discourse is, in any sense whatsoever, physical harm itself. To label every moment of discomfort or irritation as “physical harm” handicaps the building of distress tolerance and leaves graduating classes believing true bravery consists in managing to never feel uncomfortable and never encountering distasteful people.

Obstacles exist in this world. Students should learn to confront them effectively. “Effective” engagement is crucial. Refusing to engage with a problem has never solved it. All of us should value building the distress tolerance necessary to engage with life patiently and thoughtfully– not just today’s students. Building healthy intra-national relationships has never been achieved by policies of disengagement and belligerence, nor has a workplace feud ever been resolved well in such a manner; the same can even be said for diplomatically insisting on the correct change from the deli guy who accidentally charged us $31.50 for a $13.50 sandwich… instead of yelling in his face!

Date