As we sit here in the midst of finals, I'm sure that many people are working very hard studying for final exams and finishing (or starting) final papers. I was recently struck by an interesting and somewhat depressing thought. That paper that you are spending hours and possibly days trying to get just perfect will probably only ever be read by one person. How sad is that?
But isn't that true of most school assignments, particularly papers? You spend more time than you would like to admit working hard trying to get it exactly the way you want it to get the grade you want. Then, after you turn it in, the only person who will ever read your ideas is the person grading it. Then you have to consider the possibility that they disagree with your conclusions. Any good English teacher will tell you that all Literature is subjective and open to interpretation. This means that it is not only possible but likely that you will come to different conclusions that the person that grades your essay.
In all likelihood, your professor will not be willing to share your paper with anyone unless they agree with it. So basically, chances are your paper will be read by you, whoever you get to proofread it, and will stop with the grader as your brilliant ideas pass into obscurity.
Now isn't that a positive outlook on something that is likely an unhealthily large chunk of your grade? While I'm on the subject, though, why don't I just bring the whole system down on top of me?
What is the point of writing a paper?
Generally speaking, these end-of-term papers require a certain number of "credible" sources. If you don't cite any sources, than you most assuredly plagiarized the paper in some way. A mere student couldn't possibly an actual original idea. Right?
For the sake of argument, let's say one did. Let's say that someone came up with a truly brilliant interpretation of a book that no one had ever thought of before. Chances are that student would fail the assignment do to a lack of sources. On the other hand, a student that picks a topic that has been hashed and rehashed a hundred times and there are a hundred papers on will have no problem citing sources and can make a wonderful grade.
Something seems wrong with that.
But I'm not stopping with papers. Like I said, I'm bringing down the whole system!!!
The same thing applies to other things such as speeches. If someone has a truly great speech but does not meet the "requirements" whether that be meeting a particular time constraint, having a particular number of sources, or using proper formatting on their outline, they can fail that speech. Depending on that person's emotional state, that could turn them off of public speaking forever. Suddenly, BOOM! The world is down one more great orator.
That's essentially how our entire modern education system functions. People are rewarded for fitting a mold and shut down for being truly original. In fact . . .
That's how society as a whole functions!!!
We have this way in our society of making sure that everyone is in some kind of mold. Typically, we do this in the form of professions. What is one of the first things that someone asks you when you introduce yourself? "What do you do?" What a loaded question.
What people are actually looking for is a mold. They are looking for some category in which to classify you. They are looking to simplify you by turning you into your profession. People don't care about your hobbies, your friends, or what you do for fun. They just want to be able to give you a label so they can feel like they understand you . . . as if your profession has anything to do with who you are.
Before you snap cleverly back at me that you are nothing like that, think about it. Isn't that what you do?
If by some twist of fate, I have managed to entice the interest of one of the people who is in complete denial about this situation, I propose that you attempt the following experiment:
Start up a conversation with a complete stranger. During the course of this conversation, you may not ask them their profession, their parents' professions, their major, or what school they go to. It's harder to do than you think. If you want to do things even more intensely, you can't ask them their religion or their political affiliation either. You aren't allowed to ask them anything that would let you put a label on them. Now what are you left to talk about? Can you get to know someone without labeling them?
Here's one that will really blow your mind: are people really anything other than a collection of labels?
Think about it. What do you do when you "get to know someone"? You learn things about them. You learn all those things I specifically told you not to ask in the experiment. Essentially, the more labels you can give someone, the "better" you know them. If you can give people labels such as "family lover", "hater of fried okra", "former Pokemon enthusiast", "self-admitted heretic", isn't that someone you know pretty well?
So here's my unanswerable question for today: Is society's focus on fitting people into molds a symptom of something terribly wrong with the world, or is it merely preparation for truly understanding another person?
No comments:
Post a Comment