Over on Matt Tabor’s education blog, Neil Ahrendt, the American guy featured in the film Two Milion Minutes, responds via the comment box to those who examine his choices:
It’s interesting seeing so many people analyze my life to a much deeper extent than I ever have, but I will say you’ve pretty much summarized the popular American student’s view on education. But truly, I think we are to blame for this: if we continue to tell our children that they should explore whatever they want, find what interests them, be all that they can be, etc etc, how can we expect them to do anything but constantly be searching for this?
We don’t gear our schools towards producing engineers and scientists because 1) we realize most American kids don’t see the ‘glory’ of being one and 2) most American kids aren’t smart enough to become one. American public schools cater to the lowest common denominator, trying to raise up the average rather than concentrate on those with the potential for success. As a result, the smartest and most capable fall through the cracks and end up bored and unchallenged with high school. That’s not to say we won’t end up with the same high-tech jobs (Some of my best friends are now studying at institutions like Colombia, Rose Hulman, Georgetown, etc), but looking at the public high school experience in the US you will realize that there is little in terms of a challenge for students like me; we have to seek out that challenge on our own time, and if a child isn’t self-motivated, it isn’t going to happen.
I couldn’t agree more. Thanks for sharing that, Neil.
When I talked to Bob Compton, the producer of the movie, he told me that he and Neil were corresponding by email almost daily and that he had a tremendous amount of respect for this student and the way he is looking at his future.
Bright kids need options, but most of all, they need to be encouraged to pursue them. It’s a crying shame if they end up wasting four years by being “bored and unchallenged”–and it’s also unfair to throw them into school and expect them to find their own ways to do things differently.
They need tools. They need parents or other mentors who encourage them to step off the path.
It’s true what Neil says–American public schools cater to the lowest common denominator. They have to.
But the good news is that smart kids like Neil have fantastic options that allow them to discover what they want to do and get down to actually DOING it.
5 Comments
November 9, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Neil,
Thanks so much for responding to my post about you (or more precisely, your comments on Matt’s blog). I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said.
Okay, with maybe one exception. The fact is that you did have some other options during high school besides working part-time, but our culture doesn’t really encourage or support (not at this point, at least) graduating early, starting college early or basically doing things differently. That’s what I’m hoping to address in my book.
Anyway, I couldn’t be happier about the film and the questions it will inspire.
Clearly, you are a very bright and thoughtful young man with a unique opportunity to view your choices, your culture and your future from a relatively enlightened perspective. Thank you for sharing your story and your comments with the world.
I’m going to be following this film and watching the way people respond.
I hope you’ll pop in and visit the blog, Neil, and let us know how you’re doing. I’m already proud of you.
Best,Maya
December 10, 2007 at 12:52 pm
While I think that today’s youth could probably be using their free time more productively, I question whether graduating early and starting college early is necessarily the right path. If Neil had done that, he would not have had the opportunity to take his enviromental class, be class president, or even be in this film….all three of which have had a profound impact on him. If his older brothers had done that, one wouldn’t have taken an elective Genetics class, influencing his major in college which had him working at the Kennedy Space Center this summer and the other wouldn’t have had the experiences that landed him in the Purdue Glee Club that gave him the opportunity to see parts of the world at a relatively young age.
I guess my point is that there are many, many opportunities that can be seized and at that age, it doesn’t really matter what you’re learning as long as you’re engaged and learning something. Speeding up the process just gets one pigeon-holed in the work force sooner.
The message I take from the film is that the American students will be successful because of, and in spite of, their education….they just don’t know what they’ll be successful at yet.
Thanks for taking an interest.
Neil’s dad.
December 10, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Hi Neil’s dad,
Thanks for your response.
I do want to point out that my book isn’t simply about getting through school faster in order to dive into that cubicle job at age 20. Instead, it’s about understanding your options–in both high school and college–in order to make sure that you are engaged in your learning, challenged by your opportunities, and gaining both skills and experiences that will help you become competent, confident, and creative. In fact, the book provides information to help all kinds of students make the most of the time they have in school–whether they opt to finish early, take longer than usual, or develop a creative combination of educational alternatives that allow them to travel, volunteer, work as interns or engage in Real World learning all along the way.
I’m a big believer in the power of living and studying abroad, and if there is ONE THING that will alter the way our kids are prepared for the global economy, it’s getting them outside the US borders. That extra year of track or AP courses or volunteering at the church is no match for the growth and learning that come from a year of living in another country, being immersed in a new culture, becoming a part of another family, and learning how to navigate in an entirely new language. I really want to encourage more families to consider this option, but if we all remain attached to the idea that four years of high school–in one location–is the only way to prepare for college, it just isn’t going to happen. That would be a tragedy because, as Bob is learning by doing these screenings, those who are pursuing higher education without the benefit of spending time abroad are sorely lacking in perspective. And if there’s anything we’re going to need in the next few decades, it’s an eyes-wide-open perspective about the world and its possibilities.
And though being a class president, playing on a team, or getting involved in a club are all great opportunities, the reality is that many kids are spinning their wheels by doing the same thing for four years instead of branching out into more relevant, more challenging, and more diverse opportunities.
I’m all for engaging in whatever any student finds particularly compelling or challenging, but I also believe that in many cases we allow our students to opt for the same choices for two years longer than necessary–long past the point of gaining the most from the experiences–and therefore we limit their potential and their possibilities in the interest of doing what’s easy and comfortable.
It’s simply not true that “learning” is enough to ensure success at any level. There are, indeed, different levels of learning and challenge, and those who are learning at far below their capacity are missing out on tremendous opportunities to deepen and broaden themselves as individuals.
I’m glad that Neil found ways to stay engaged, but we’ll never know what more he could have learned by, say, going to school/playing a team sport/being head of a club in another country and language for a year in high school.
I’m just here to say that there are possibilities–FANTASTIC ones, really–for those who are willing to step away from the traditional path, and I’m happy to encourage students to consider options that aren’t quite as popular, easy, or predictable.
Thanks for writing!
Best,
Maya
December 12, 2007 at 8:58 pm
I have one question: if the public schools are having so much trouble catering to those so called ‘much brighter and better’ students, then why don’t families pursue private education? If all parents can do is complain about how their intelligent children are suffering in school because the ‘dumber’ kids are holding them back, then why, may I ask, are you so opposed to finding a different form of education that eliminates some of the frustration with unmotivated students and teachers having to cater to them.
And quite honestly, I think that by saying that your ‘brilliant, smart, wonderful, better’ child is being held back by the ‘lowest denominator’ of kids is pretty egotistical-just a thought. Our public schools are created to help all students-and yes, it is frustrating if a student is not being worked to their full potential, but I think its wrong and egotistical for a parent to say that your child deserves more than another child simply because you feel that they’re ’smarter’.
R.M.
December 12, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Hi Rosie,
I think you are misunderstanding my premise.
All of my daughters have attended public schools through high school. I never home-schooled nor did they attend private schools prior to getting their high school diploma. But that doesn’t mean I have any problem with charter schools, private schools, or any other kind of school. I’m PRO school! I’ve never said otherwise. And I encourage every parent to make their own choices and respect others who have made theirs.
I’m not saying that public schools “held back” my kids. I am saying that the US education system in general–the whole idea of staying in one place for four years and following the traditional path to college admissions–is but ONE option and parents need to know that there are other ways to get a great education.
I’ve never said that my kids are smarter, better, or anything else. All I’m saying is that each student is different and so it is a bit presumptuous to say that the same one-size-fits-all education will be the best option for every kid. It’s just not true.
And my intention is to simply inform parents that they are free to consider all kinds of supplemental education options or to create their own special combination of options for their kids.
I’m confused about your position about MY position! I’m not just saying “my child deserves more”–I am saying that EVERY CHILD deserves to have the best education available and the one that is most likely to enrich and engage them.
Rosie, please leave your correct email address if you choose to post. I tried to respond to you personally but my email was returned with a “no such address” message.
Thanks!
Maya