Also, with a later post you mentioned stressing that high school students do whatever they can to put themselves above others to be attractive to prestigious colleges. This is similar to getting work experience while in school. It's not to gain any sort of training that will help in the real world. It's simply to stay ahead and stand out from the crowd. That's really what it comes down to. College or not, work experience or not, if one can stand above the crowd and distinguish themselves as more useful than other candidates, then that person will be hired.
Actually, as both a faculty member AND as parent to a high school junior, I feel that this outlook is a VERY serious problem right now.
The problem is that there are way too many people
way too concerned with "appearing" to be things that they aren't really. It's an arms race now, and that
is a problem. My daughter frequently sees this in her peers-- they ONLY want to sign up for responsibilities that sound lofty and take little-to-no preparation or behind-the-scenes time. It's all about maximizing their resumes. These kids are 14-18yo.
I don't think that is healthy, I don't think it is sustainable, I think that it is BAD for communities, and for that reason alone, my family has opted OUT of the race to elite college admissions. It's
not a goal. Period.
I think that high school
ought to be a place for more exploration than it currently allows for, thanks to that rat-race mentality of out-competing one's classmates... er... "opponents" (as I think Jon has helpfully termed them
).
The slow and steady, but
authentic route still works. There still isn't a substitute for hard work and time devoted to an activity that genuinely matters to you as a person. That is, do things because you feel passionate or intrigued... or because they seem like a good idea for you personally, and don't worry about whether or not they'll look "good" on a vita later.
I understand that the workplace is a marketplace that works this way when demand is outstripped by supply, and I don't really have a problem with employers selecting those candidates that demonstrate the best capacity to add value to a company in one way or another...
but why is this kind of thinking appropriate in COLLEGE admissions, again? (I don't believe that it
is appropriate there, actually.) The goal of a college or uni is to educate and shape students into learners and thinkers. The goal of most employers is to make money efficiently. If the argument is that "students should be prepared for the 'real world' as soon as possible," then the entire notion of "education" is flawed to begin with, because it IS about being something else to start with. We accept that children should not have adult responsibilities and should be shielded from some things in the name of education... so when does that end? If it ends at "maturation" then for some individuals, it's not developmentally appropriate until age 25-27. Which is why rental car agencies have some interesting policies about what they consider "adulthood." Actuarial science has some lessons to teach us there. LOL.
I also disagree with your interpretation of the data re: internships. I tend to think that most industrial internships are mostly about identifying those people who: a) will work for nothing (or nearly so), b) have no sense of their own worth or human dignity, and c) have a high pain/tedium tolerance. It's a sorting method, all right. LOL. But that is the cynic in me. Graduate students are often subjected to a similar sieving process, for whatever that is worth.
I also agree that it is never too late to seek education, though. One of my best friends in graduate school was a sixty-something retired county sheriff who returned to school after his kids were gone, and found he loved it so much he went after a PhD when he finished a bachelor's in the subject!
I always loved to see returning students in my classes-- they KNEW why
they were there, and they were enthusiastic, engaged, and eager.
