It may be hard to imagine this, but I probably would have been a Uni student (or at least aspired to) if I had lived nearby. Instead, I went to a large, public, highly mediocre school, where I was mostly anonymous, but did (thanks to music) have a group with which socializing was, if not easy, at least possible. Other top geeks in my school were not so fortunate. The "creepy dancy by herself girl" in your article never would have made it to a dance. The "loud obnoxious boy" would have been beaten up, ostracized, or both. Anonymity does NOT engender social skills.
It can be enticing to look at the "typical" student at another school, and lament about features of his or her life that are foreign to your life. Had you been a student at that other school, however, I seriously doubt that you would have been typical. You mention sports or play practice, for example. The V/JV basketball team at my 1600-student high school had fewer boys on it than our team does. Yes, we had football... OK, 30/1600 adds less than 2% of the student population. So all sports, all theater, all dance group/marching band/etc. students at my school would be a much smaller percentage than the comparable student activity level at Uni. Part of your anonymity might have been lack of access to sports teams, or theater productions, or the school newspaper. Your success at Uni (even your being at Uni) attests to an internal drive that would have set you apart at my high school. And by apart I mean potentially isolated.
Your article definitely raises some interesting questions, and I'm glad you wrote it. One of the issues the faculty has begun to examine is what, really, does Uni offer our students? Said differently, you came into Uni as bright students, you perform well on ACT/SAT/AP (duh!); so what difference did Uni make?
I'd be very interested in seeing alumni perspectives and responses to what you wrote.
The Uni Experience
It may be hard to imagine this, but I probably would have been a Uni student (or at least aspired to) if I had lived nearby. Instead, I went to a large, public, highly mediocre school, where I was mostly anonymous, but did (thanks to music) have a group with which socializing was, if not easy, at least possible. Other top geeks in my school were not so fortunate. The "creepy dancy by herself girl" in your article never would have made it to a dance. The "loud obnoxious boy" would have been beaten up, ostracized, or both. Anonymity does NOT engender social skills.
It can be enticing to look at the "typical" student at another school, and lament about features of his or her life that are foreign to your life. Had you been a student at that other school, however, I seriously doubt that you would have been typical. You mention sports or play practice, for example. The V/JV basketball team at my 1600-student high school had fewer boys on it than our team does. Yes, we had football... OK, 30/1600 adds less than 2% of the student population. So all sports, all theater, all dance group/marching band/etc. students at my school would be a much smaller percentage than the comparable student activity level at Uni. Part of your anonymity might have been lack of access to sports teams, or theater productions, or the school newspaper. Your success at Uni (even your being at Uni) attests to an internal drive that would have set you apart at my high school. And by apart I mean potentially isolated.
Your article definitely raises some interesting questions, and I'm glad you wrote it. One of the issues the faculty has begun to examine is what, really, does Uni offer our students? Said differently, you came into Uni as bright students, you perform well on ACT/SAT/AP (duh!); so what difference did Uni make?
I'd be very interested in seeing alumni perspectives and responses to what you wrote.