I don't usually take the time to comment on Gargoyle articles, but I think that this article merits response.
Blaming Uni for the failure of certain individuals to adjust to a college environment and for students supposed lack of social skills is preposterous. It is easy to blame your problems on Uni's small social environment and academic rigorousness, but this argument is ultimately specious. This editorial posits that Uni students find it harder to adjust to the college environment than students enrolled in traditional high schools, but the truth is that these claims are based on pure speculation; none of the authors have any experience with what "typical" high school students have to deal with in their transition to college. From my limited knowledge of these experiences, I would hypothesize that the tribulations of Uni alumni are not any greater than graduates of other schools attending similar universities. I have often heard of people who were smart, popular, and widely connected individuals in high school having a terrible time their freshman year in college.
Uni’s small environment and fraternal atmosphere doesn’t smother student’s development any more than a large high school atmosphere does. At Uni we have chess players who have started on the varsity soccer team. There are individuals who have gone to state in track, and also in math. Our journalism students not only cover volleyball, cross country, and basketball, but they also play them. There are precious few other schools where this would be even remotely possible. People change over their high school careers, and since Uni is so close it can seem a little hard to change how you are, however in a large high school it would be even harder. At Uni, everybody knows everybody else, and that makes it easier to form new friend groups. Imagine how hard it would be to change yourself if the only people you really knew in your school were those people in your friend group. It would be much harder to change your scene, as you would have to get to know complete strangers first.
The editors seem to think that Uni does not socially prepare its students for life in the "real world." Though this is never directly said in the editorial, the editors themselves have been known to make this allegation, and it seems to be an underlying theme throughout the article. What they do not realize is that a vast majority of students will not be entering the "real world" after leaving Uni. Most of us next year will attend a school from a relatively short list of academically outstanding colleges-the Unis of the collegiate world, as it were. The students that are drawn to these colleges are not going to be that different from Uni students, and it would be ignorant to say that this academic setting, similar to the one we are already in, in any way constitutes the “real world”. It is not even clear to me what the “real world” indicates, as a lot of people will go on to graduate from college, and get a job or go on to graduate school, never having to cope with a situation radically different than that of this school. However, I must admit that undoubtedly there will be some situations in which it is important to act socially mature, which, the authors of this editorial would postulate, would be more challenging for a Uni alumnus. Uni permits social immaturity, and accords it a certain amount of normalcy. This, it is true, causes many students to act less mature than they probably would otherwise. However, there is a huge difference between performance and potentiality. Though many students act immaturely at Uni, this only means that they feel safe enough in the environment that they can be a little bit wacky. If they felt that it would be inappropriate or unacceptable to act in this fashion, most people would shape up. This will be what happens when they have to deal with diverse situations in college, and in the rest of their lives. Maybe it won’t even be necessary for them to curtail their naturally human immaturity if they end up at the right school. In conclusion, Uni offers a relaxed enough environment that people feel free to be expressive and a little bit socially immature, but if people were in a situation where maturity was needed, most could rise to the occasion. For those students that are naturally immature no matter the situation, I would say that a public high school education would be extremely detrimental to their well-being. They would be shoved aside and marginalized whereas at Uni they are given time to mature at their own pace. When people fail to adjust to college, it is not the fault of their Uni education, their troubles would be at least as bad, if not worse, if they had gone to a traditional high school.
This editorial seems intent on enforcing stereotypes about Uni students, while at the same time blaming the institution itself. When we go off to college, there is no chance that anything remotely resembling the editorial cartoon will happen, as some of our peers will probably have gone to similar magnet or lab high schools. Uni is not notorious in the collegiate world as a “nerd school” and it is aggravating to think that people actually believe that Uni has made us so much more different than other students. I find it hard to believe that Uni students are reinforcing such a negative generalization of ourselves.
On the topic of generalizations, I feel that it is dangerous to categorize the Uni community into two diametrically opposed groups. There are, the editors claim, the “smarty pants” who think they are astronomically superior in intelligence to everyone else around them, and the more “normal” kids who end up with inferiority complexes because of the unbounded arrogance of the rest of Uni students. The generalization of the Uni student who feels intellectually superior to outsiders, their classmates, and their future collegiate peers is an especially hurtful and fallacious generality. Students at Uni are pretty sharp, defiantly smart enough to realize that they are not the absolute smartest people in the world. In general, there will always be someone better than you at everything, and it is evident that if you attend an academically challenging university, there will be plenty of people smarter than you. This does not mean that Uni students will be playing “second fiddle,” as many graduates will be academically competitive at any college they go to. However, even if they are not in the top echelon of intellectuals in college, Uni students are academically gifted individuals and can thrive intellectually whether or not they are the absolute smartest. Contrary to the implication of this article, Uni students do not resent people who are smarter, but rather respect them. While the issue of those Uni students who feel themselves to be inferior to the rest of the crowd is a little more concerning, this does not resign them to a lifetime of insecurity and social failure, as the editorial goes on to suggest. It is important for everyone to realize that intelligence is not everything, and that it doesn’t really matter if you think that you are not as smart as your peers, you are ok how you are. What is really important is that you try your hardest, give it your all.
Overall, I find that these stereotypes of Uni students, and the dire predictions for years to come are extremely disheartening to read. If one is discontent, blaming the institution and the social environment is not they way to go. Perhaps it would be better to search inwardly and ponder the source of one’s discontent, and even think about why one wants to be at Uni in the first place. This editorial may speak for all the senior editors (which I’m not convinced that it does), but it sure does not speak for all the seniors. Its generalizations of student character and accusations of social stagnancy at Uni are neither accurate nor appreciated. The fabrication of a problem with Uni’s tightly nit and socially distinct environment and the qualms of live after Uni that this editorial instills are unhelpful and discouraging to all the seniors who are ready to push on to a successful college career.
yes, and there is life AT Uni too.
I don't usually take the time to comment on Gargoyle articles, but I think that this article merits response.
Blaming Uni for the failure of certain individuals to adjust to a college environment and for students supposed lack of social skills is preposterous. It is easy to blame your problems on Uni's small social environment and academic rigorousness, but this argument is ultimately specious. This editorial posits that Uni students find it harder to adjust to the college environment than students enrolled in traditional high schools, but the truth is that these claims are based on pure speculation; none of the authors have any experience with what "typical" high school students have to deal with in their transition to college. From my limited knowledge of these experiences, I would hypothesize that the tribulations of Uni alumni are not any greater than graduates of other schools attending similar universities. I have often heard of people who were smart, popular, and widely connected individuals in high school having a terrible time their freshman year in college.
Uni’s small environment and fraternal atmosphere doesn’t smother student’s development any more than a large high school atmosphere does. At Uni we have chess players who have started on the varsity soccer team. There are individuals who have gone to state in track, and also in math. Our journalism students not only cover volleyball, cross country, and basketball, but they also play them. There are precious few other schools where this would be even remotely possible. People change over their high school careers, and since Uni is so close it can seem a little hard to change how you are, however in a large high school it would be even harder. At Uni, everybody knows everybody else, and that makes it easier to form new friend groups. Imagine how hard it would be to change yourself if the only people you really knew in your school were those people in your friend group. It would be much harder to change your scene, as you would have to get to know complete strangers first.
The editors seem to think that Uni does not socially prepare its students for life in the "real world." Though this is never directly said in the editorial, the editors themselves have been known to make this allegation, and it seems to be an underlying theme throughout the article. What they do not realize is that a vast majority of students will not be entering the "real world" after leaving Uni. Most of us next year will attend a school from a relatively short list of academically outstanding colleges-the Unis of the collegiate world, as it were. The students that are drawn to these colleges are not going to be that different from Uni students, and it would be ignorant to say that this academic setting, similar to the one we are already in, in any way constitutes the “real world”. It is not even clear to me what the “real world” indicates, as a lot of people will go on to graduate from college, and get a job or go on to graduate school, never having to cope with a situation radically different than that of this school. However, I must admit that undoubtedly there will be some situations in which it is important to act socially mature, which, the authors of this editorial would postulate, would be more challenging for a Uni alumnus. Uni permits social immaturity, and accords it a certain amount of normalcy. This, it is true, causes many students to act less mature than they probably would otherwise. However, there is a huge difference between performance and potentiality. Though many students act immaturely at Uni, this only means that they feel safe enough in the environment that they can be a little bit wacky. If they felt that it would be inappropriate or unacceptable to act in this fashion, most people would shape up. This will be what happens when they have to deal with diverse situations in college, and in the rest of their lives. Maybe it won’t even be necessary for them to curtail their naturally human immaturity if they end up at the right school. In conclusion, Uni offers a relaxed enough environment that people feel free to be expressive and a little bit socially immature, but if people were in a situation where maturity was needed, most could rise to the occasion. For those students that are naturally immature no matter the situation, I would say that a public high school education would be extremely detrimental to their well-being. They would be shoved aside and marginalized whereas at Uni they are given time to mature at their own pace. When people fail to adjust to college, it is not the fault of their Uni education, their troubles would be at least as bad, if not worse, if they had gone to a traditional high school.
This editorial seems intent on enforcing stereotypes about Uni students, while at the same time blaming the institution itself. When we go off to college, there is no chance that anything remotely resembling the editorial cartoon will happen, as some of our peers will probably have gone to similar magnet or lab high schools. Uni is not notorious in the collegiate world as a “nerd school” and it is aggravating to think that people actually believe that Uni has made us so much more different than other students. I find it hard to believe that Uni students are reinforcing such a negative generalization of ourselves.
On the topic of generalizations, I feel that it is dangerous to categorize the Uni community into two diametrically opposed groups. There are, the editors claim, the “smarty pants” who think they are astronomically superior in intelligence to everyone else around them, and the more “normal” kids who end up with inferiority complexes because of the unbounded arrogance of the rest of Uni students. The generalization of the Uni student who feels intellectually superior to outsiders, their classmates, and their future collegiate peers is an especially hurtful and fallacious generality. Students at Uni are pretty sharp, defiantly smart enough to realize that they are not the absolute smartest people in the world. In general, there will always be someone better than you at everything, and it is evident that if you attend an academically challenging university, there will be plenty of people smarter than you. This does not mean that Uni students will be playing “second fiddle,” as many graduates will be academically competitive at any college they go to. However, even if they are not in the top echelon of intellectuals in college, Uni students are academically gifted individuals and can thrive intellectually whether or not they are the absolute smartest. Contrary to the implication of this article, Uni students do not resent people who are smarter, but rather respect them. While the issue of those Uni students who feel themselves to be inferior to the rest of the crowd is a little more concerning, this does not resign them to a lifetime of insecurity and social failure, as the editorial goes on to suggest. It is important for everyone to realize that intelligence is not everything, and that it doesn’t really matter if you think that you are not as smart as your peers, you are ok how you are. What is really important is that you try your hardest, give it your all.
Overall, I find that these stereotypes of Uni students, and the dire predictions for years to come are extremely disheartening to read. If one is discontent, blaming the institution and the social environment is not they way to go. Perhaps it would be better to search inwardly and ponder the source of one’s discontent, and even think about why one wants to be at Uni in the first place. This editorial may speak for all the senior editors (which I’m not convinced that it does), but it sure does not speak for all the seniors. Its generalizations of student character and accusations of social stagnancy at Uni are neither accurate nor appreciated. The fabrication of a problem with Uni’s tightly nit and socially distinct environment and the qualms of live after Uni that this editorial instills are unhelpful and discouraging to all the seniors who are ready to push on to a successful college career.